THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 1612 of 2008 Date: 07.04.2011 Between: T.Mallikarjuna Rao, Prakasam District and 16 others. …Petitioners And Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ongole, Prakasam District. …Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 1612 of 2008 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed to punish the respondent herein under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, for allegedly violating the order of this Court dated 19.04.1996 made in W.P.No.3136 of 1996. The petitioners herein along with 3 others filed W.P.No.3136 of 1996 seeking a mandamus directing the respondent- A.P. State Road Transport Corporation to regularize their services in the Corporation from the date of their initial appointment. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 19.04.1996 with directions as under: “In the circumstances, a writ shall be issued to regularize the services of the petitioners in the posts of Conductor reckoning the continuous service of the petitioners as envisaged under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, for the purpose of all benefits in the service.” Alleging that the respondent Corporation did not regularize their services from the date of initial appointments in spite of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3136 of 1996, some of the petitioners herein filed Contempt Case No.1480 of 1998. During the pendency of the said contempt case, by proceedings dated 15.07.1999 the services of the petitioners were regularized from the date of initial appointments. Thereafter, the Corporation issued a notification dated 21.08.1999 fixing the seniority provisionally and calling for objections. As the names of the petitioners were shown below the Conductors who were recruited under displaced employees quota, the petitioners submitted their objections. After considering the same, the Corporation by notification dated 30.10.1999 published the final seniority list showing the petitioners above the displaced employees. Aggrieved by the same, the displaced employees filed W.P.No.23605 of 1999 contending that the action of the Corporation without issuing notice to them as to the objections raised by the petitioners herein was arbitrary and illegal. By order dated 27.12.1999 the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court remanding the matter back to the Corporation for fixing the seniority after issuing notice to both the parties. Pursuant thereto, objections were received from both the parties and after considering the same the Corporation by proceedings dated 30.06.2000 confirmed the earlier seniority list dated 30.10.1999. Challenging the said proceedings, the displaced employees filed W.P.No.12275 of 2000. The said writ petition is pending and as there is no interim order, the seniority list dated 30.10.1999 has not been disturbed. Thereafter, the Corporation has also published the Regional seniority list as on 31.12.2004 and even in the said list, the seniority of the petitioners herein has been maintained as fixed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3136 of 1996. While so, the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole issued show case notices dated 07.11.2008 proposing to alter the seniority of the petitioners as shown thereunder on the ground that as per regulation 12 of APSRTC Employees Recruitment Regulations, 1966 and as per Regulation 3 of APSRTC Employees Service Regulations 1964 the regularization from the date of initial appointment will not change the seniority fixed as per communal roster and calling upon the petitioners to show-cause as to why their seniority should not be changed. Contending that the said show-cause notices are in clear violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3136 of 2006 the present contempt case is filed to punish the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the order in W.P.No.3136 of 1996 became final and the same was also implemented, issuance of the show- cause notices at this length of time amounts to overreaching the order in W.P.No.3136 of 1996 and since the said action of the respondent amounts to deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court he is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the show cause notices dated 07.11.2008 were issued in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P.Lakshmoji Rao[1]. It is also stated that challenging the very same show-cause notices dated 07.11.2008 the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.26458 of 2008 in which an interim suspension of the said show cause notices has been granted. Since the said writ petition is still pending and no further action is taken by the respondent pursuant to the show-cause notices, it is contended that the present contempt case is not maintainable at all. The learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the decisions in State of M.P. and others v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.[2], and Board of Revenue v. P.K.S.Akbar Sahib[3] vehemently contended that it is not open to the respondent to modify or alter the seniority fixed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3136 of 1996 on the basis of a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. Thus, it is contended that the action proposed under the show cause notices dated 07.11.2008 undoubtedly amounts to flagrant violation of the orders of this Court. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation while pointing out that the W.P.No.3136 of 21996 was allowed by following the judgment of a Division Bench in W.A.No.705 of 1995 dated 24.07.1995 and on an appeal against the said judgment of the Division Bench, the Supreme Court in Lakshmojirao’s case (1 supra), held that the daily wage employees had no legal right to claim regular appointment in the time scale from the initial date of engagement on daily wages, submitted that the show-cause notices dated 07.11.2008 came to be issued in view of the said decision of the Supreme Court. At the outset it is to be noticed that the order in W.P.No.3136 of 1996 whereunder the Corporation was directed to regularize the services of the petitioners was already implemented and admittedly, the services of the petitioners were regularized. Thereafter, the seniority of the petitioners was also fixed and the seniority list was published on 30.06.2000. It is true that under the show cause notices dated 07.11.2008 the seniority so fixed on 30.06.2000 is sought to be altered. However there is absolutely no justifiable reason to hold that the said action of the respondent amounts to violation of the order in W.P.No.3136 of 1996. Firstly, the order in W.P.No.3136 of 1996 did not say anything about the fixation of seniority of the petitioners. The direction is only for the regularization of the services and the same was admittedly implemented. Even assuming that the fixation of seniority is consequent to the regularization of the services of the petitioner in terms of the order in W.P.No.3136 of 1996, it is relevant to note that the seniority list published on 30.06.2000 has not attained finality and it is the subject matter of W.P.No.12275 of 2000, which is still pending. Secondly, the notices dated 07.11.2008 are only show cause notices and no decision as such has been taken by the respondent so far for alteration of the seniority list published on 30.06.2000. Moreover, the petitioners have already filed W.P.No.26458 of 2008 challenging the very same show cause notices. The said writ petition is pending and an order of interim suspension is in operation. Hence, in my considered opinion, the contempt proceedings initiated are unwarranted and the allegations made by the petitioner are absolutely without any basis. Since the validity of the seniority list published on 30.06.2000 as well as the show-cause notices dated 07.11.2008 is the subject matter of two writ petitions pending on the file of this Court, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion on the contentions advanced by the parties on merits. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 07.04.2011 KLP [1] 2004 (2) SCC 433 [2] (2002) 10 SCC 144 [3] AIR 1973 Kerala 285