@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G. Rohini, J.@mdashThis appeal is filed under Clause-15 of Letters Patent aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No. 1807 of 2011. We have heard Sri V. Venugopal Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. As could be seen from the material available on record, the respondent herein, who was working as a Senior Mechanic in Sri Kalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, Sri Kalahasti, filed W.P.No.20987 of 2007 aggrieved by termination of his services by proceedings dated 9.9.2007. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge by order dated 2.9.2010 while setting aside the impugned proceedings disposed of the writ petition directing reinstatement of the writ petitioner/respondent herein with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including increments, arrears of salary, etc., however imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. W.A. No. 938 of 2011 preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed by judgment 15.11.2011.
3. Thereafter, the writ petitioner/respondent herein filed Contempt Case No. 1807 of 2011 with a prayer to punish the respondents in the writ petition for flouting the order in WP. No. 20987 of 2007 as confirmed in the Writ Appeal.
4. The appellants herein filed counter-affidavit stating that the writ petitioner was reinstated as per the interim directions even before disposal of the writ petition and thereafter the difference of wages and arrears payable were also paid to him in compliance with the order in W.P. No. 20987 of 2007.
5. However it was contended on behalf of the petitioner in the contempt case that he was denied regularization of his services on par with the other non-teaching staff including the contract workers whose services were regularized w.e.f. 1.2.2006. It was also pleaded that the A.P. Revised Pay Scales, 2005 have been implemented to all the regular non-teaching staff members and all other regular technicians qualified with Diploma and ITI in their respective Departments and they are drawing Basic pay of Rs. 6,845/- in the pay scale of Rs. 6195-170-13945 and that the petitioner also should have been placed in the said pay scale on par with other regular non-teaching staff members. Having accepted the petitioner''s claim, the learned Single Judge held that the stand taken in the counter-affidavit that the respondents had already implemented the order in W.P.No.20987 of 2007 was not correct and accordingly closed the Contempt Case with directions to pass consequential orders and pay arrears to the petitioner therein on par with his similarly placed employees within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. It was also made clear that the petitioner was entitled for regularization on par with other contract workers whose services were previously regularized by the first respondent observing that once termination is set aside an employee will be entitled to all the consequential benefits.
6. Aggrieved by the above said directions issued by the learned Single Judge while closing the contempt case, this Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the respondents in the writ petition/contempt case.
7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner raised an objection as to the maintainability of the appeal contending that as the learned Single Judge had merely clarified the purport of the order passed in W.P. No. 20987 of 2007 and no fresh directions were issued, the appellant cannot maintain the present writ appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.), SRBC, NANDYAL v. N. VASUDEVARAO (2004 (1) An.W.R. 418).
8. The law in this regard is well-settled. u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an appeal lies only against an order or decision of this Court passed imposing punishment for contempt. Though no such appeal is maintainable against an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt or an order dropping the proceedings for contempt or an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, if this Court decides an issue or makes any direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties in a contempt proceedings, such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (vide
9. Thus it is clear that if the rights of the parties are decided and any direction is issued which is at variance to the original order passed in the writ petition an intra-court appeal can be maintained by the aggrieved person under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent.
10. Therefore, we do not find any reason to dismiss the appeal at the threshold as not maintainable. Consequently, it is necessary for us to examine whether the appellants are justified in contending that the directions in the contempt case are at variance to the order passed in the writ petition.
11. As noticed above, W.P. No. 20987 of 2007 was disposed of with directions as under:
Looking from any angle, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside and, instead of remanding the matter, I deem it appropriate to give quietus to the litigation here itself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot escape from the misconduct committed by him and he has to suffer some punishment or the other. The punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In the result, respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including increments, arrears of salary etc. However, respondents shall impose punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect against the petitioner.
12. So far as the contempt case is concerned, the operative portion of the order reads as under:
In the above circumstances, both the respondents are directed to pass consequential orders and pay arrears to the petitioner on par with his similarly placed employees within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner is also entitled for regularization on par with other contract workers whose services were previously regularized by the first respondent. It is also made clear that once termination is set aside an employee will be entitled to all the consequential benefits.
13. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him was placed under suspension on 10.10.2003 and subsequently by order dated 9.9.2007 he was discharged from service.
14. However, by order dated 17.04.2008 the order of suspension was revoked subject to the result of W.P. No. 20987 of 2007. subsequently, the order of discharge dated 9.9.2007 was set aside by this Court on 2.9.2010 in W.P. No. 20987 of 2007 and reinstatement of the respondent herein was directed with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including increments, arrears of salary etc. In the interregnum the services of the other non-teaching staff who joined service along with the respondent herein were regularized w.e.f. 1.2.2006. Since the respondent herein was under suspension at the relevant point of time, his services were not regularized along with other similarly situated persons. Soon after the order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated into service, he made a representation dated 11.5.2009 requesting to regularize his services on par with other similarly situated persons. He again made representations dated 30.09.2010 and 24.11.2011 requesting the appellants herein to implement the orders of this Court in W.P.No.20987 of 2007 and to regularize his services w.e.f. 1.2.2006. However the appellants herein failed to consider the same and therefore the respondent was constrained to initiate contempt proceedings in which the learned Single Judge issued positive directions for payment of arrears apart from making it clear that he is entitled for regularisation on par with other contract workers.
15. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for either party, we are of the opinion that in view of the reinstatement ordered by this Court in W.P. No. 20987 of 2007 with continuity of service and attendant benefits, it is not open to the appellants herein to contend that payment of arrears of wages to which he was entitled to as contract employee on temporary basis is in sufficient compliance and his claim for regularization amounts to a totally different cause of action. Having regard to the admitted fact that the services of similarly situated non-teaching staff engaged on contract basis were regularized w.e.f. 01.02.2006, the respondent herein shall also be granted the same benefit in compliance with the order in W.P. No. 20987 of 2007 in letter and spirit. Since the appellants herein failed to do so and the stand taken by them in the counter affidavit was found to be untenable, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to make clear while closing the contempt case that the respondent herein is also entitled for regularization on par with other similarly situated persons.
16. In our considered opinion, the said order passed by the learned single Judge while closing the contempt case under no circumstances can be held to be in variance to the order passed in W.P. No. 20987 of 2007. Therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.
