THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO.2 OF 2009 DATE:01.03.2011 BETWEEN DR. MRS. M.SRINIVASAMMA. …PETITIONER AND HYDERABAD REGIONAL CONFERENCE & OTHERS. …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO.2 OF 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed by the petitioner seeking to summon respondents-1 to 4 personally and punish them under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt Act for their willful, deliberate and wanton disobedience of the orders passed in WP.MP.No.23898 of 2000 dated 08-09-2000 in W.P.No.18357 of 2008. At this stage, it is relevant to go through the order passed by this Court on 08-09-2008 in W.P.M.P.No.23897 of 2008 in W.P.No.18357 of 2008, which reads as under: “There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for payment of terminal benefits including encashment of earned leave, gratuity, provident fund dues as per her eligibility, and pass appropriate orders as per law within a period of four weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner. The W.P.M.P is accordingly disposed of.” On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. While denying the allegations of contempt, it is inter alia stated that as per the Education Code, the respondent- management is liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner. However, while taking the formula as per the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, the management has paid an amount of Rs.65,000/- towards Gratuity payable to the petitioner and it is also stated that in so far as the E.P.F dues are concerned, the same was paid to the E.P.F authorities up-to-date by computing the share of the management. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the amount so far paid by the respondent-management to the petitioner. But, her contention is that the amount that was calculated is wrong. It is to be noted that as per the interim direction granted by this Court on 08-09-2008 in W.P.M.P.No.23897 of 2008 in W.P.No.18357 of 2008, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to the payment of the terminal benefits in question. In this regard, according to the respondent-management, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, an amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid to the petitioner, for which she has no objection. But, the claim of the petitioner is that the calculation of the amount that has been made by the respondent-management is wrong. If that being the case, in my considered opinion, it does not amount to any contempt. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to come to the conclusion that there is any contempt committed by the respondents. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from making the claim as to the remaining entitlement of the terminal benefits, if any. With the above observation, this contempt case is closed. ____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:01.03.2011 Sp/gurc. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO.2 OF 2009 DATE:01.03.2011