THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO. 805 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice B Seshasayana Reddy) This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the orders dated 2.1.2006 passed in W.A.M.P.No. 4509 of 2005 in W.A No. 2506 of 2005. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 23.3.2009. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is not being paid the salary as directed by this Court vide orders dated 2.1.2006 in W A M P No. 4509 of 2005 in W A No. 2506 of 2005 and thereby they violated the directions given by this Court and rendered themselves liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner availed various loans while in service and amounts due are deducted from his salary which is being paid pursuant to the interim orders dated 2.1.2006 and there is no violation of the directions given by this Court on 2.1.2006. On 15.6.2009, this Court passed the following order; “Since the learned counsel on either side submit that on furnishing of the statement of account in regard to the salary particulars the petitioner be permitted to visit the office of the A P Grameena Vikas Bank, Hanamakonda, Warangal on 22.6.2009 between 10AM to 12 Noon. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted and shall report on 29.6.2009. Post on 29.6.2009.” It is the contention of the petitioner that in spite of his visiting the office of the respondent, he has not been given necessary particulars of deductions made from his salary. This fact has been contradicted by the learned counsel for the respondent and it is contended by her that petitioner appeared before the respondent and necessary particulars have been given to him, for which he expressed his satisfaction and addressed letters accordingly. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner took us to the letters addressed by the petitioner to the respondent bank, which find place in pages 43 and 44 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The letter dated 24.6.2009 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent bank reads as under; “Thanks for sparing sometime on my matter on 22.6.2009 at your office. It is learned from my wife that you have passed on some information over phone regarding the “Statement of Payments & Recoveries” asking me to come to your office on 24.6.2009 once again. I could not come to you again due to unavoidable reasons. I request you to send what ever material you want to send it by post to my residential address, Vizag. The figure you have shown me about payment of salary of Jan, Feb, March 2006 as Rs.31,417/- (paid)- 4,007/- (recovered) is not tallying with what I have received (actually paid –Rs.24,272/- by cheque-Rs.21,272-recovered). Kindly checkup at your end.” It is evident from the above letter that the petitioner is being paid monthly salary by way of cheque. It is also evident from the letter that certain amounts have been deducted out of the salary. According to the respondents deductions are made because of petitioner availing various loans while in service. Since the petitioner availed loans while in service, the respondent bank has every right to deduct the same from his salary. Undisputedly the monthly salary is being paid to the petitioner by way of cheque. Indeed the letter dated 24.6.2009 is explicit that salary for the month of January, February, March, 2006 has been paid by way of cheque. Such is the factual situation, we express our inability to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondent has violated the orders of this Court dated 2.1.2006. In the result, the contempt case does not deserve for admission and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ________________ B PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________ B SESHASAYANA REDDY,J DATE: 22.3.2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO. 805 OF 2008 DATE: 22.3.2010