The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER I ! // /;, THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE NO. 76 OF 2025 ORDER: Thrs Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedir:nce of the orders of this Court dated 2O.O2.2O24 in W.P.No.53 of 2O2l by the respondents and to punish them under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and to pass such other order or orders in the interest oljustice

2. [n the Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.S3 of 2021, the petitioners had challenged the action of the respondents in denying the encashment of Earned kave to their credit, as rllegal and arbitrary. It was brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the Former Acting Chairman and Member oi TSPSC, this Court in W.P.No.46OBB of 2022 had directed the respondents therein to follow the procedure, as per lari, lor sanction of Earned Leave and encashment of the sarne and that the petitioners are als() entitled to similar relief. Taking the same into consideration, the 2 impugned letter issued by the respondent No.l in respect of all the petitioners were set aside and the respondents were directed to sanction the Earned Leave and encashment of the same to the writ petitioners also as per law.

3. The respondent No.2 thereafter preferred a u,rit appeal in W.A.No.843 of 2024 against the order of this Court in W.P.No.S3 of 2021, dated 2O.O2.2O24 and the Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 15.07.2O24 has dismissed the same as withdrawn q.ith libertv to the affected parties to pursue their remedies in accordance with law. Thereafter, the writ petitioners have made representations to the respondents to implement the orders of this Court but the same has not been considered br- the respondents and therefore, alleging willful disobedience of the directions of this Court, the present Contempt Case has been f-rled by one of the writ petitioner

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has filed a counter affidavit stating tl-rat I I '/I 3 1n compliance with the directions of this Court, the respondr:nts have considered the case of the Former Member Sri.D.Krishna Reddy i.e., the Petitioner in W.P.No.46088 of 2022 and have cancelled the orders issued in favour of Sri.D.Krishna Reddy. It is stated that since the petitioner herein along with other members have already availed the encashment of 3OO days in their previous emplo_yment, they are not eligible for any encashment of further leaves in terms of Regulation 6 of TGPSC Regulations and further that the representations of the petitioners have also been disposed of accordingly.

5. This Court had thereafter required the counter affidavit to be filed by the respondent No.1 and the responden t No. I has filed a counter aJhdavit clarifying the legal position and submitted that in the case of Sri.D.Krishna Reddy, Former Member of TGPSC, though initially, the relief was given as per direction given in W.P.No.46t)BB of 2022, dated 07.06.2023, thereafter, in the Contempt Case filed by the petitioner herein, it was duiy I I I I I I I t I i ! I i I r- 4 noticed that the maximum encashment that can be allowed is 3OO days including leave eamed/encashed in previous appointment in Government, the orders were cancelled and this Court has closed the Contempt Case filed by Sri.D.Krishna Reddy vide orders dated 03.01.2025. It is stated that in the present case, the Government has considered the requests of the petitioners and has issued a detailed speaking order dated 24.02.2025 and therefore, there is compliance with the directions of this Court and there is no contempt committed by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the impugned orders in the r,r,rit petition was set aside by this Court and therefore, the respondents cannot pass a fresh order reiterating the ver1. same lindings. It is submitted that Seryice Rules do not contemplate or prohibit encashment of Earned Leave over and above 3OO days in previous appointments in Government and in the absence of the same, respondent No. I has no authority or right or jurisdiction to denv the 5 /r encashment of Earned Leave. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Sikkim and Others vs. Dr.Mool Raj Kotwalr, to submit l.hat the State Service Rules would apply and in this case as there is no prohibition in the State Service Rules of encashment for more than 300 days, the order of this Court l-ras to be implemented.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court Iinds that this Court has set aside the impugned orders of denying the benelit of leave encashment to the rvrit petitioners and to follow the directions of this Court as in the case of the Former Member Sri.D.Krishna Reddy, in W.P.No.46Oa8 of 2022. There u,as no decision on the merits of the rule position. It is stated by the respondents that thereafter, they have even r,r.ithdrawn the relief granted to Sri.D.Krishna Reddy and the Contempt Case filed b1, him has already been closed. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there I 2025 SCC Oohxc Sl Ettt't I I 6 is no Contempt of Court committed by the respondents herein in refusing the leave encashment to the petitioner herein along with other members and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking orders dated 24.02.2025, he is at liberty to challenge the order of rejection. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said rejection order. There sha11 be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. sd/- K. E RAMA MURTH EPUTY REG //TRUE COPY// \ ECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. One CC to SRI J. ASHVINI KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2.rwoCCstoGPFoRSERV|CESll,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana. [our]

3. Two CD CoPies. ARI/kam (A- i I I I ,. C) 'i I HIGH COURT OATED:2310712025 ORDER CC.No.76 of 2025 . 1HE lira, ' o k q o o 0t ilN m5 * SpaT C teo CLOSINGTHE CONTEMPT CASE WTHOUT COSTS. qA (, \s a.\ 6