THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No : 65 of 2010 Date: 15.03.2010 Between: Smt. M.Vijaya Lakshmi ..... PETITIONER AND Sri P.Venkatesham, Ongole. .....RESPONDENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 65 of 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of interim order dated 29.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.28662 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is to be noticed that W.P.No.28662 of 2009 was filed challenging the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 08.12.2009. This Court, by order dated 29.12.2009, directed that status quo as on that date shall be maintained for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, the same was extended until further orders on 25.01.2010. It is alleged in the present contempt case that pursuant to the interim order dated 29.12.2009, though the petitioner was continued in service till 25.01.2010, thereafter she was not allowed to work in view of the proceedings of the respondent dated 19.01.2010 whereunder one Y.Adi Bhaskara Rao was posted in her place on transfer. Thus, it is contended that the action of the respondent is in deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court and he is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is explained that pursuant to the termination order dated 08.12.2009, the petitioner was relieved from service and her claim that she was in service on the date of interim order dated 29.12.2009 was in correct. The further plea of the petitioner that she was continued in service up to 24.01.2010 has also been specifically denied. It is further stated that since there was a clear vacancy, one Y.Adi Bhaskara Rao was posted at Recharla in the place of the petitioner. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the order passed by this Court dated 29.12.2009 was only an interim order whereunder the direction was to maintain status quo as on that date. The question whether the petitioner was actually in service on that day or not is in dispute between the parties and the same cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in this contempt case. At any rate, since the writ petition is still pending, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if she is still aggrieved and this is not a fit case for taking cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in the writ petition, if so advised. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 15-03-2010 KLP