The High Court · 2025

1. Shri C. Parthasaradhi, l.A.S. and 2 Others, Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operative (horticultureandSericulture) Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Shri L.Venkatram Reddy, The commissioner of Horticulture and sericulture, Government of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

3. Shri K.RamaKrishna Rao, l.A.S, Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOs.1'2 and 4 in W.P.46007/2018 Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI' BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: OROER 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAI :SHWA R RAO 'co TqPT CAS No .77 OF aoal ) SDEB: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful dis< bedience of the orders of the Court, dated 27,02.2019, passed in V'.P.No'46007 of

2. Heard Sri Phani Bhushan, learned couns:l representing Sri Bondempally Ramulu, learned counsel for the letitioners, and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pl€ ader, appearing For the respondents.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for t counsel for the petitioners submit that the r> earing, learned der passed in W.P.No.46007 of 2018, dated 27.O2.2019, has nrr been complied with in its true spirit. It is contended that the re spondents have passed the compliance order, dated 17.09.2025, n a mechanical manner without considering the relevant aspe(I s. The learned Single Judge had specifically referred to the judgrr ent rendered in W.P.No.36805 of 2018, dated 11.10.2018. but the authorities, without following the said directions, simply reje,:' ed the claim of the petitioners. ( 2 4, On the other hand, learned Special Government pleader appearing For the respondents submits that in. W.p.No.46007 of 2018, dated 27.OZ.2Olg, the learned Single luc,ge directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services as NMRS stricfly in terms of the law laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Umadevi,s case and also the judgment dated 11.10.2018 rendered by this Court in W.P.No.36805 of 2018.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that, vide Memo Rc.No.2 27g/H&S/2Olg_3 dated 17.09,2025, the case of the petitioners was examined and rejected. The relevant portion of the said memo reads as follows: "10. In compliance to the Orders in W.p.No.46007 of 2018 and to the C.C.No.77/2O20, fited by the petitioners before the Hon,bte High Court Tetangana, Hyderabad and after verification of the conditions laid in the G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & pbnning (FW-pC_il|) Department, Dated 22.04.1gg4 & G.O.(P).No.112 Fin & p@ (FW.pC_ur) Dept. dt:23,07.1997, as there is no provision to regularise the seruices and they are not futfiring the condition No.s stipulated in the G.o.Ms.No.272 Fin & p@ (FW.pC.ilI) Dept. Dt.22.O4.1gg4 and also Condition No.l stiputated in G'o'(P)'No'112' Fin & Plg (FW.pc-ill) ourr.'ou dt(3'oz'lsez' since the petitioners are not , =ngaged against any sanctioned , I l l I I l i i i : i , I I I t I I i I i ! l l : I i t t I I ! T I I 3 department and no the cadre in the worke,t post is Depart nent of posts in the available in Sericulture."

6. Per contra,learned counsel for the petitiorr rs contends that G.O.(P).No.112 is not applicable to the petit lners and that Condition No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.212 is also not rel,rvant to case of the petitioners. Therefore, the rejection of the pol tioners claim by the respondents vide order dated t7.09.2025 ; in mechanical manner and not in accordance with law.

7. Having considered the submissions made b1' loth the learned counsel, it is to be noted that the scope of a Cont: npt Case is very limited. The learned Single Judge,. by order da .ed 27.02.2019, directed the authorities to consider the case ol the petitioners in accordance with the judgment in W.p.No.368C: of 2018, dated

11.10.2018, and pass appropriate orders. Technica ly speaking, the authorities have considered the case of the petitior and rejected =rs by order dated 17.09.2025, assigning reasons as st rted above.

8. However, this Court is of the considered ,iew that if the petitioners have any grievance with respect to ti e said rejection order dated 17.09.2025, they are at liberty to chal( nge the same in accordance with law. This Court, however, cannot irterfere with the correctness of the said order in a Contempt Case. I I I ! I I i i j I i i I I I l I i I i i I I I I 4

9. In view of the above submissions made by both the learned counsel and in view of the order passed by the respondent authorities vide Memo Rc. No.2279lH&S/20 19-3, dated L7 .Og.2O2S, the Court is of the considered view that the order passed by this Court has been complbd with.

10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach afresh, if they have any grievance. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Contempt Case, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHO.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. Shri C. Parthasaradhi, l.A.S. and 2 Others, principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operative (horticultureandSericulture) Department, State of Telargana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. shri L.venkatram Reddy, The commissioner of Horticulture and sericulture, Govemment of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

3. Shri K.RamaKrishna Rao, l.A.S, principal Secretary, Finance and planning Departrnent, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRl. BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll ,High Court for the State of Telangana.

6. Two CD Copies TUPSL : 1 I i I () I THE S ( o,J f, .o2- *112 '\t "Vr 5 'rrq 2026 z o '..'* ,ATCH(c HIGH COURT DAf ED:2411O12O25 i I : I ORDER CC.No.77 ot 2020 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE. q .1u "t