HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.397 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION Nos.120 & 1443 of 2004 Date: September 16, 2011 Between: 1. P. Subrahmanyam & another … Petitioners and 1. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.397 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION Nos.120 & 1443 of 2004 O R D E R: This contempt case was filed by the petitioners in W.P. Nos.120 and 1443 of 2004 alleging disobedience to the common order dated 13.11.2009 passed therein. By the said order, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the respondent in the writ petitions, was directed to substitute the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect for the original punishment of removal from service visited upon both the writ petitioners. This substituted punishment was directed to be given effect from the date of the order of the earlier punishment. The writ petitioners were however to be granted continuity of service in view of the setting aside of the removal order and the APSRTC was directed to give effect to the same for reckoning their pensionary benefits after giving effect to the substituted punishment of withholding of increments. 2. It is now stated by Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, that in due compliance with the aforestated order the basic pay of both the writ petitioners was re- fixed from the date of removal till the date of their attaining the age of superannuation by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. In consequence, both the petitioners were paid the difference of pensionary benefits due to them under cheques dated 04.8.2011. 3. Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, however contended that after the petitioners attained the age of superannuation, it was not open to the APSRTC to reduce their pay. It is however to be noticed that this Court, while setting aside the order removing the petitioners from service, directed substitution of the said punishment with that of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, making it clear that such substituted punishment was to take effect from the date of the order of the earlier punishment of removal of service. That being so, the withholding of increments would relate back to the date of the order of removal from service and it cannot be construed that such withholding of increments was effected after the retirement of the petitioners from service. This Court therefore finds no wilful disobedience to its order warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: September 16, 2011. BSB