THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.864 of 2009 (Dated : 27-08-2009) Between: C.Papaiah S/o Lakshmaiah, Occ: Incharge AEE, Mustabad Mandal, R/o CESS, Siricilla, Karimnagar District and others ….petitioners A n d The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.864 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1922 of 2009 complaining disobedience of the order dated 05.2.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.2435 of 2009. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 6.7.2009. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. The direction given in W.P.M.P.No.2435 of 2009 is to consider the representation dated 28.12.2007 and 17.03.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules/Regulations in force. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Cooperative Electric Supply Society Limited, Karimnagar District. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that as per the interim directions of this Court, the case of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein has been considered along with others and they have been promoted as Additional Assistant Engineers. It is further stated that the case of the petitioners 3 and 4 would be considered as and when vacancies arise and as per their seniority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Department is filling up the posts of Additional Assistant Engineer by drawing persons on deputation. If such is the grievance, the petitioners have to workout their remedies by way of separate proceedings. As seen from the memo No.CESS/Estt/D.No.788/2009, dated 24-07-2009, six persons have been promoted from the cadre of Line Inspector to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer. Of these six persons, petitioners 1 and 2 herein figured at Sl.Nos.5 and 6. It is stated in the said memo that the case of the petitioners 3 and 4 herein will be considered as and when vacancies arise. A copy of the proceedings is also placed on record. It appears the copy of the proceedings has been served on petitioners 3 and 4. Such being the situation, I am of the view that the respondents have not violated the orders passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in this contempt case. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed as redundant. No costs. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 27th August 2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.864 of 2009 DATED : 27-08-2009