THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.C.No.920 of 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents intentionally and willfully disobeyed the order, dated 25-08-2009, passed by this court in W.P.No.5096 of 2002. This Court, by order, dated 25-08-2009, while disposing of the said writ petition filed by the respondents herein against the order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyerabad (for short “the Tribunal”), dated 27-11-2001 in O.A.No.8548 of 2001, upheld the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of termination, dated 06-11-2001, and rejected the contention of the respondents herein that the petitioner is not having five years continuous service as on 25-11-1993, and also directed the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization subject to fulfilment of the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. This court, however, set aside the other directions of the Tribunal with regard to payment of revised pay scale to the petitioner, as he is not entitled for revised pay scale until his services were regularized. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as chainman on daily wage basis with effect from 01-06-1987 vide proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sirpur, dated 01-06- 1987 in the vacancy arose due to continuous absconding of Sri M.Ashulu with effect from 11-05-1987 without any application for leave, as there was urgency to take the services of the chainman. Thereafter, the 1st respondent vide proceedings No.A3/386/90, dated 14-08-1990, issued appointment order to the petitioner stating that he is fully qualified and eligible for appointment as chainman in the existing vacancy in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office, Sirpur. Thereafter, his services were terminated by order, dated 13-09-1993, and the said termination order was set aside by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6741 of 1993, dated 31-12-1993. Subsequently, the petitioner had joined into service and again his services were terminated by the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 20-01-1994. Therefore, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.275 of 1994 and the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. on 08-05-1999 setting aside the termination order, dated 20-01-1994. Again, the 1st respondent terminated the services of the petitioner by proceedings No.A5/653/99, dated 06-11- 2001 on the following grounds:- 1) the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) is not competent to appoint anybody on daily wage basis. But, in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as Chainman on daily wage basis by order, dated 01-05-1997, which is irregular. 2) Appointment of the petitioner is also irregular in terms of G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 14-03-1999. 3) There was no clear vacancy of chainman in Adilabad District to absorb the applicant as Chainman and his services cannot be regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 14-03- 1990, and he has not fulfilled the requirement of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in O.A.No.8548 of 2001 and the Tribunal by order, dated 27-11-2001, allowed the said O.A. by observing as follows:- “Firstly, that the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer) is not the competent authority and as such, the orders issued by him on 01-06- 1987 are irregular, and therefore, such appointment cannot be approved. After a period of nearly 14 years, it is not now open to the respondents to take a stand that the Mandal Revenue Officeris not competent to appoint the applicant, especially in view of the judgments rendered by the Tribunal earlier, and also as the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records himself issued the orders in the year 1990, appointing the applicant in the existing vacancy. Even assuming for one moment that the applicant was not appointed originally by the competent authority, i.e., the Assistant Director, the orders issued by the Assistant Director during 1990 appointing the applicant in the existing vacancy clearly shows that the appointment of the applicant, by any means, by any stretch of imagination cannot be called as irregular. Similarly, the second ground that was taken in the impugned order was that in the absence of a clear vacancy, the applicant’s case cannot be considered for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22-04- 194. This is also a fallacious argument, as the orders of the Assistant Director issued on 14-08-1990 in proceedings No.A3/386/90 clearly state that the applicant was appointed against the existing vacancy and that the applicant was fully eligible and qualified for appointment as Chainman. It is therefore to be necessarily held that the orders of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records smack of a vindictive attitude against the applicant, which is not expected of an employer. In view of the facts stated in the very record itself, necessarily, it is to be held that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to continue the applicant in service and also in case, if he is already relieved, he is directed to re-admit him and continue him in service. The orders issued by the Tribunal earlier for regularization of the services of the applicant and for payment of salary to the applicant in the Revised Pay scale duly fixing him in the year 1993 and 1999 pay scales, should also be implemented at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The District Collector is directed to submit necessary proposals to the Government for obtaining necessary orders in this regard within one month, and the Government shall pass orders for regularization in favour of the applicant within a further period of two months, in view of the undisputed facts stated in the paras above. The O.A. is accordingly allowed with the above directions, at the admission stage.” Questioning the said order, the respondents herein filed W.P.No.5096 of 2002 before this Court and this Court confirmed the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.8548 of 2001, dated 27-11-2001. The contention raised in the writ petition that the petitioner was not having five years continuous service was also rejected as the termination order itself was set aside by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. As on the date of disposal of the said writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was working as chainman. Pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 25-08-2009, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for regularization of his services. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent vide letter, dated 09-11-2009, directed the 2nd respondent to send the concerned file and the 2nd respondent vide his letter, dated 18-11-2009 submitted a supplementary file of the petitioner stating that original file was destroyed. Thereafter, on 25-03-2010 the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent as well as the counsel appearing for the petitioner stating that the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records A.P., Hyderabad, instructed not to fill up the post of chainman in any office without his prior approval. The sanctioned strength of 13 posts of chainman were filled up and there is no vacancy in the office. However, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 21-05- 1985. The 1st respondent further stated that he has given consent for regularisation of the services of the petitioner and he has no objection for regularisation of services of the petitioner in the Tahsildar office, Sirpur. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent vide his letter Rc.No.A/976/2002, dated 08-04-2010, informed the 1st respondent stating that the Tahsildar, Sirpur, is not the competent authority for regularisation of services of the petitioner till clear orders are received from the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the District Collector in Rc.No.A5/795/2009, dated 29-05-2010, sending certain remarks, which reads as follows:- Remark No.1: The Tahsildar Sirpur (T) appointed Sri N.Hanumanthu, Chainman on daily wage Rc.No.A1/943/87, dated 01-06-1987 under G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 21-05-1985 as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22- 04-1994, the applicant was completed (5) years service in cadre of Chainman at Mandal Revenue Office. Remark No.2: In meantime the then Assistant Director again issued appointment orders in favour of applicant Rc.No.A3/386/90, dated 14- 08-1990 the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994 is not attracted by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records proceeding. Remark No.3: The applicant was filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad W.P.No.5096 of 2002 dated 25-08- 2002 passed an orders for regularization of services subject to fulfilment of the condition in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. Remark No.4: The Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records A.P., Hyderabad, instructed not to fill up post of Chainman posts, in any office including on compassionate grounds, without proper approval of the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records A.P., Hyderabad.” This Court issued notice before admission on 09-07-2010. Notices were served on the respondents and on 26-07-2010, the learned Government Pleader sought two weeks time for filing counter. Accordingly, this Court directed the respondents to file counters by 09-08-2010, failing which, they should appear before this Court on 09-08-2010. On 09-08-2010, the respondents appeared and the 1st respondent filed counter. On 10-08- 2010, the 2nd respondent filed counter. On 10-08-2010, both the respondents appeared before this Court and we have heard them personally along with their counsel. The 1st respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the case of the petitioner is not considered for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, as the petitioner did not fulfil the condition of completion of five years of continuous service as on 25-11-1993, and therefore, the request of the petitioner for regularisation of services was rejected vide proceedings, dated 01-07-2010. The proceedings, dated 01-07-2010, passed by the 1st respondent is also enclosed. In the said proceedings, the 1st respondent stated that the petitioner is not having five years continuous service as on the cut off date as specified in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, and as he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, his case was rejected for regularisation. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter stating that as per the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records A.P., Hyderabad, has to grant approval for appointment in Adilabad District. It is stated that sanctioned strength of 13 posts of chainman in Adilabad District were already filled up and there is no vacancy for appointment in the unit of Adilabad District. Hence, he could not seek the approval of the Commissioner for regularization of services of the petitioner. If there is any vacancy, the 1st respondent would have sought approval of the Commissioner. Accordingly, it is stated that as there is no clear vacancy post of chairman, the services of the petitioner could not be regularised. The stand taken by the respondents and the averments made in the counters are nothing but reiterating the stand taken by the 1st respondent in his order, dated 06-11-2001 vide proceedings No.A5/653/99, which was set aside by the Tribunal in O.A.No.8548/2001, dated 27-11-2001, which was also confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.5096 of 2002. Further, the Tribunal rejected all the grounds taken by the respondents in the counters and the said termination order was set aside by the Tribunal, which was also confirmed by this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no clear vacancy and that the petitioner is not having five years continuous service as on the cut off date as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. In fact, the Tribunal had rightly observed in its order that the order of the 1st respondent smacks of a vindictive attitude against the petitioner, which is not expected by any employer. During the course of arguments, the particulars relating to the appointment of chainman and the regularisation from the initial date of appointment with effect from 01-06-1987 and about existing vacancies, the respondents fairly accept that clear vacancy is available. It is also stated that in the office of the 2nd respondent there is no regular chainman except the petitioner, who has been working continuously. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that there is no vacancy is false and without any justification. The action of the respondents in not implementing the order of this court amounts to deliberate and wilful disobedience and therefore, both the respondents are held guilty. Therefore, office was directed to post the matter on 23-08-2010 for passing appropriate sentence, on which date, both the respondents were directed to appear before this Court. Today, both the respondents appeared before this Court and we have heard them with regard to passing of appropriate sentence. Today, the respondents filed additional counter affidavits sworn on 16- 08-2010 and 18-08-2010 respectively stating that 1st respondent issued Proceedings No.A3/389/90, dated 11-08-2010, regularizing the services of the petitioner as Chainman in the existing vacancy in the post in which he is working in the Tahsildar office, Sirpur (T), Adilabad District, with effect from 01-06-1987. It is stated that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. Pursuant to the said order of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent also issued proceedings in Rc.No.A/976/02, dated 11-08-2010, regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 01-06-1987. Though the respondents have taken a stand in the earlier proceedings stating that the petitioner did not fulfil the condition of completion of five years of continuous service as on 25-11-1993, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, and in fact, the 1st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for regularizing his services vide proceedings dated 01-07-2005, now the respondents admitting the mistake, have regularized the services of the petitioner, in compliance of the order of this Court, dated 25-08-2010, passed in W.P.No.5096 of 2002. However, the respondents have tendered unconditional apology. As the services of the petitioner have been regularized, pursuant to the order of this Court, and the respondents have tendered unconditional apology, we take a lenient view in imposing sentence. Accordingly, the respondents are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one day till rising of the Court. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 23-08-2010 Prv