THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO.900 OF 2010 Dated:27.08.2010 Between: D. Amanulla …. Petitioner AND Bupta Prakash M. Jyothi and another …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO.900 OF 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order dated 09.04.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25883 of 2003, whereby the writ petition was allowed setting aside the impugned termination order dated 09.12.2003 issued by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Kurnool. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a clerk w.e.f. 08.09.2003 in the respondents’ organization on compassionate grounds in the place of his father, who died while working as a Clerk in the respondents’ organization. He further submitted that the first respondent issued appointment order on condition that he shall clear off all the loans availed by his father and also in the names of the other members of his family to the Bank within three months from 08.09.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that while the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent herein by proceedings dated 09.12.2003 terminated his services. Questioning the said termination order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.25883 of 2003 and obtained interim suspension of the impugned termination order. Pursuant to the same, he has been continuing as a clerk. Ultimately, by order dated 09.04.2010 passed in the writ petition, the impugned termination order was set aside by this Court. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he has been continuing in service on contract basis, he is not being paid the salary on par with the similarly situated persons. Therefore, the present Contempt Case is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when once this Court has set aside the impugned order of termination and the petitioner is being continued in service, he is entitled to all the benefits including the salary on par with the similarly situated persons. Since the petitioner is not being paid his service benefits including the salary on par with the similarly situated persons, the action of the respondents would amount to willful disobedience as per the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, the respondents are liable for punishment under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while filing the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, submitted that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is continuing his service and is being paid the salaries as per the terms and conditions stipulated in his appointment order. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed by this Court by setting aside the impugned order, and, accordingly, the petitioner is continuing without there being any change in the terms and conditions specified in his appointment order. 6. Now the claim of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the salary on par with similary situated persons as also not been provided with other service benefits. This contention is not tenable for the reason that no adjudication is made in the writ petition with regard to the payment of the salary and other benefits to the petitioner. A perusal of the order passed in the writ petition shows that the termination order was set aside. Therefore, even subsequent to allowing of the writ petition also, the petitioner is being continued in service on the same terms and conditions that were imposed in his appointment order. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that there is no violation of the order passed by this Court as alleged by the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 27th August, 2010 bud THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO.900 OF 2010 Dated:27.08.2010