THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE NO.786 OF 2010 DATED: 13.06.2011 Between : K. Lokeswar … Petitioner And 1. Anil C.Puneetha and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE NO.786 OF 2010 ORDER : This Contempt Case is filed with a prayer to punish the respondents for alleged violation of the order dated 10.08.2009 in W.P.No.14597 of 2009. The petitioner herein along with 3 others filed W.P. No.14597 of 2009 seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not passing orders on their representation dated 29.06.2009 for upgradation of the existing posts of Light Vehicle Drivers as the Senior Drivers in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.127, General Administration (Services-B) Department, dated 22.04.2003 is arbitrary and illegal. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10.08.2009 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 29.06.2009 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 22.04.2003 and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner No.1 in the writ petition pleading that in terms of the orders of this Court, the respondent No.2 by proceedings dated 22.09.2009 informed the 3rd respondent that the proposals for creation of posts of Senior Drivers by upgrading the existing posts were already submitted and the orders were awaited from the Government. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent by letter dated 25.01.2010, while submitting the service particulars of the Drivers, who are eligible for promotion as Senior Drivers which included the petitioner herein, requested to issue necessary instructions to fix up their pay pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 22.04.2003. However orders were issued in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 in W.P.No.14957 of 2009 thereby upgrading them as Senior Drivers. Alleging that the action of the respondents in not passing similar orders in favour of the petitioner in spite of the fact that five posts of Senior Drivers were sanctioned in Anantapur District amounts to deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.14957 of 2009, the present Contempt Case is filed. Pursuant to the notice ordered in the Contempt Case, the respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that only two posts were available in Anantapur District and in the said vacancies the petitioners 2 and 3 in W.P.No.14957 of 2009, who are seniors to the petitioners herein were accommodated. While explaining that the petitioner herein was junior to the said two individuals and did not come within the zone of consideration for promotion, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner’s case would be considered as per his seniority in future vacancies. It is also stated that the said fact was already informed to the petitioner herein by proceedings dated 4.6.2010 and therefore the allegation that the respondents had violated the order of this Court is unfounded and the contempt proceedings are unwarranted. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. A perusal of the proceedings dated 4.6.2010 filed along with the counter- affidavit shows that the petitioner herein was informed that his case for upgradation could not be considered since permission was given by the Government to fill up only two posts. It was also mentioned in the said proceedings that the petitioner was not eligible for the promotion claimed by him. As noticed above, while disposing of W.P.No.14957 of 2009, this Court did not express any opinion as to the tenability of the claim of the petitioners and the respondents were merely directed to consider the representation of the writ petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Admittedly such an order was passed by the respondents on 4.6.2010. Even assuming that the said order is erroneous or illegal on any ground whatsoever, it is for the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance. By virtue of the proceedings dated 4.6.2010 which was passed in compliance with the directions in W.P.No.14957 of 2009 it cannot be said that there is any disobedience on the part of the respondents so as to take cognizance under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 4.6.2010 if so advised by working out the appropriate remedy available under law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 13.06.2011 gbs