THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1677 OF 2010 DATE:29.09.2011 BETWEEN V.NAGESWARARAO …PETITIONER AND SRI G.V.SUBRAHMANYAM & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1677 OF 2010 ORDER: The present contempt case is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the respondents under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for non implementation of the order of this Court dated 22.04.2010 passed in W.P.No:25738 of 2003. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings in Memo No:SE/O/ELR/DE(T)/PO/Admn/U4/F.61/D.No:C-369/03, dated 5.7.2003 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in Memo No: SE/O/ELR/DE(T)/PO/Admn/U4/F.61/D.No:C-370/03, dated 5.7.2003 as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner was that he joined in the respondent organization as helper on 1.6.1972 and promoted as Assistant Lineman on 14.4.1981. He was placed under suspension on 15.9.2000 on the ground that he produced a fake S.S.C certificate claiming for promotion as Lineman. The 1st respondent appointed an enquiry officer by proceedings dated 21.10.2000 and after conducting an enquiry, enquiry report was submitted on 9.5.2001. Pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings, he was reinstated with service on 27.5.2001. Then consequent to the enquiry, the punishment of stoppage of 4 increments with cumulative effect was imposed by proceedings dated 6.8.2002 of the 2nd respondent and the said proceedings have been implemented. While so, the 1st respondent issued the Memo dated 5.7.2005 cancelling the order of punishment and by Memo dated 5.7.2003, an enquiry officer was appointed with out notice to the workman. The said proceedings dated 5.7.2003 have been challenged in the writ petition. By order-dated 22.04.2010, the said writ petition was allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 5.7.2003. It is also made clear that as the petitioner was already retired from service and he was not paid any retirement benefits, the respondents are directed to settle and pay the retirement benefits to him in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The complaint of the petitioner is that the order passed by this Court in the writ petition has not been complied with. A counter has been filed narrating the facts and circumstances, under which the delay in complying with the order of this Court, has occurred. The reasons assigned in the counter for the delay in complying with the order of this Court, are considered to be accepted. At this stage, while placing a copy of the proceedings of the Senior Accounts Officer, No:SE/O/Elr/SAO/Pen/U1/GPONO:1491/D.No:249/11, dated 20.8.2011 showing the grant of gratuity of an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and payment of the same through the Bank account of the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that it amounts to compliance of the order of this Court and therefore, the question of contemptuous acts on the part of the respondents, does not arise. In that view of the matter, the present contempt case is dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the petitioner from making any representation if any claim is unsettled towards the retirement benefits. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Gurc. Date:29.09.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1677 OF 2010 DATE:29.09.2011