IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO :942 OF 2010 DATED:13.9.2010 Between: Shankara Rao Chowdary .....PETITIONER AND T.Kulashekar Reddy, Depot Manager. .....RESPONDENT This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO :942 OF 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the respondent under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No:26525 of 2003, dated 22.10.2008. The petitioner herein filed I.D.No:1 of 2001 before the learned Labour Court challenging the order of removal from service and the learned Labour Court dismissed the said I.A confirming the order of removal and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.26525 of 2003 and by judgment dated 2.10.2008, this Court passed the order as under: “For the foregoing reasons, the impugned award and the order of removal dated 16.6.1995 are set aside and consequently, the respondent No:2 shall reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and with continuity of service.” Complaining that the respondents have failed to implement the order passed by this Court, this contempt case is filed. Heard the learned counsel. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation has placed before this Court the proceedings No:L1/785/03/HC2, 13.1.2009, which reads as under: “The Honourable High Court while disposing of the above writ petition on 2.10.2008 has set aside the removal order dated 16.6.1995 and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service without back wages and with continuity of service. The Regional Manager, Secunderabad has accorded sanction to reinstate you into service with continuity of service and without back wages and post you to MYP. Depot. Your are therefore, advised to report the Depot Manager, MYD Depot for taking you on duty within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, it will be deemed that you have no interest in the service of the Corporation and this order stands cancelled.” The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that having regard to the order passed by the respondent-Corporation in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been reinstated into service and he joined the services. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not provided with the scale attached to the post and therefore, the order passed by this Court, does not lead to full compliance of the order of this Court. But, in the light of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition and the order of the respondent-Corporation reinstating the petitioner into service, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondent-Corporation has complied with the order of this Court passed in the writ petition and therefore, the question of willful disobedience of the orders of this Court, does not arise. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. No orders as to the costs. However, it is made clear that it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies that are available under law if he is so advised. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:13.9.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO:942 of 2010 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2010