IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.680 OF 2010 DATED:16.8.2011 Between: R.V.N.S. Murthy … Petitioner And Dr. L. Jalapathi Rao Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University Administrative Office, Rajendranagar Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar and others … Respondents … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.680 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. This contempt case arises out of the judgment dated 22-1-2010 in W.A. No.813 of 2009 the operative portion whereof may be noticed: “Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the University to give effect to the conversion of the appellant from the post of U.D. Steno to that of Senior Assistant from 14-5-2000 and treat him as being eligible and fully qualified for promotion to the post of Superintendent from 14-5-2002 upon his fulfilling the requirements of Regulation 6(4)(iv) of the Ministerial Service Regulations of the University, subject to the availability of a vacancy. In any event, he would be entitled to be treated as senior to the unofficial respondents who were promoted as Superintendents under the proceedings dated 20-10-2003. The University shall accordingly give effect to the aforesaid direction and grant all necessary consequential benefits to the appellant, including seniority, promotion etc., within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 2. How has University responded to the directions of the Court, reference to the statement of fact becomes imperative and relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder; “As per the above directions, University issued Proc. No.1480/Ser.V/A1/2010 dt.16-11-2010 and Proc. No.38316/OP/A2/2010 dt.22-11-2010 as explained in my earlier Affidavit. In proceedings dated 16- 11-2010 petitioner’s seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant was refixed by assigning the Sl. No.261(1) in place of Sl. No.263 from 14-5-2000 and his seniority in the cadre of Superintendent was fixed w.e.f. 06-11-2003 and in seniority list he is placed at Sl. No.152(a) just above the senior most unofficial respondent No.2 namely Gulam Ghouse. Similarly in Proc. Dated 22-11-2010 the seniority of petitioner is revised in the cadre of Superintendent and he was placed in the seniority list at Sl. No.166(a) in the common category of AR/AO/AC/PS to VC and assigned seniority w.e.f. 12- 10-2007 i.e., the date on which his immediate senior was assigned seniority and above the name of Sri Gulam Ghouse (unofficial second respondent) who is at Sl. No.167 in the seniority list. Thus petitioner as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court treated as senior to the unofficial respondents. Even though Proc. No.2077/Ser.V(A1)/2003 were issued on 20-10-2003 effecting temporary promotions to the post of Superintendents from the category of senior assistants, the senior most unofficial respondent No.2 was promoted only from 06-11-2003 and as such petitioner was placed above the said 2nd respondent. Likewise in the cadre of AR/AO/AC/PS to VC he was placed just above the Sri Gulam Ghouse, unofficial 2nd respondent and fixed at Sl. No.166(a) and just below the immediate senior w.e.f.12-10-2007. However, in proc. No.1480/Ser.V/A1/2010 dt.16-11-2010 and Proc. No.38316/OP/A2/2010 dt.22-11-2010 petitioner’s seniority was notionally fixed with the monetary benefit from the date of his joining service in the cadre of AR/AO/AC/PS to VC. In the light of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the matter has been re-examined and revised orders were issued vide Proc. No.3244/Ser.V/A1/2011 dt.6-4-2011, by allowing all consequential monetory benefits to the petitioner from 06.11.2003 in the cadre of Superintendent and from 28.09.2007 onwards in the common category of AR/AO/AC/PS to VC. In the said Proceedings Associate Dean, College of Food Science and Technology, Bapatla is requested to take immediate action to refix his pay accordingly and arrange for the disbursal of arrears from 6-11-2003 for which petitioner is eligible and further directed to report the compliance to the University.” 3. The stand taken by the respondent – University and narrated in its statement of fact supported by an affidavit reproduced hereinabove showing the compliance of the judgment, are not disputed by the petitioner. The only grievance that is registered by him before us is denial of retrospective effect to his promotion from 14-5-2000 to the post of Superintendent. No doubt, the Court has directed the respondents to treat him to be eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Superintendent from 14-5-2000 subject to availability of vacancy but it is too far an attempt on the part of the petitioner to stretch it to read as a direction to promote him retrospectively from 14-5-2000. Respondents have promoted the petitioner as Superintendent with reference to the date when the post of Superintendent was filled up by promotion of unofficial respondent 2, viz., Gulam Ghouse i.e, 6-11- 2003 assumes significance. Even otherwise the contention is devoid of merit because petitioner has been placed above Sri Gulam Ghouse in the category of Superintendent. Situated thus, nothing survives for adjudication in this Contempt Case. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 16-8-2011 B. Narsinga Rao