THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 551 of 2010 Date: 23.11.2011 Between: V.Satyanarayana and 2 others. … Petitioners And E.V.Prasad and 2 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 551 of 2010 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed to punish the respondents from allegedly violating the order dated 24.11.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24116 of 2009. The petitioners herein were appointed as skilled workmen in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not extending the pay scale of Rs.500-15-620-800 with effect from 18.02.1978 to the petitioners, they filed W.P.No.24116 of 2009 seeking a direction for implementation of the pay revision effected by the respondents. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioners made representations dated 02.05.2009 and 23.09.2009 ventilating their grievances and the same were yet to be considered, this Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 24.11.2009 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 02.05.2009 and 23.09.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. Alleging that the respondents failed to comply with the above said order in W.P.No.24116 of 2009, the present contempt case is filed. The 1st respondent-Principal of University of College of Engineering, JNTU, Kakinada filed a counter affidavit stating that a letter dated 06.09.2010 was addressed to the Registrar, JNTU, Kakinada for onward transmission to the Audit Officer, State Audit, JNTU, Kukatpalli for further action in the matter. The petitioners were informed that steps were being taken in the matter by memo dated 20.12.2009. The petitioners were also informed that steps were being taken to obtain the revised pay fixation statements as per rules by the State Audit to the eligible Technical Staff and that soon after approval of Revised Pay Fixation statements by the State Audit the same will be implemented. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that since the admissions of the applicants and their service particulars are available with the 1st respondent, it is only for the 1st respondent to take necessary action. Though no counter affidavit is filed, Sri Venkat Reddy, the learned counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent, submitted on instructions that on bifurcation JNTU, Kakinanda was formed w.e.f. 20.08.2008 and that the petitioners are under the control of the 1st respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material placed before this Court, steps have already been initiated by the 1st respondent to obtain the approval for the Revised Pay Fixation statements and the said fact has been informed to the petitioners by memo dated 20.12.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there is any inaction on the part of the respondents in complying with the directions of this Court. Since it is clear that the matter is now pending with the State Audit Officer, the contempt case is closed leaving it open to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings against the Audit Officer in case necessity thereof arises. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23.11.2011 KLP