1. BB.Laxmi v. operative (horticultureandSericurture) Department

1. Shri C. Parthasaradhi, l.A.S., principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co_ stite or relangana, 2. Shri L.Venkaram Reddy, The Director of Horticurture and Sericurture, 3. shri K.RrrmaKrishna Rao, l.A.s., principar secretary, Finance and pranning Government of Telangana, at Hyderabad. -, Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESpONDENT NOs. 1,2 and 8 in WP 6536/20i9 Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for the Respondents SRI PHANI BHUSHAN FOR SRI. BONDEMPALLY RAMULU SRI S.RAHUL REDDY SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER FOR GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the foltowing: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N MAVA RAPU RAI sHwAR RAO E CONTEMPT CASE No.81 OF 2O2O ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the orders of the Court, dated 28.03.2019, passed in W.P.No.6536 of 20t9.

2. Heard Sri Phani Bhushan, learned counsel representing Sri Bondempally Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order passed in W.P.No.6536 of 2019, dated 28.03.2019, has not been complied with in its true spirit. It is contended that the respondents have passed the compliance order, dated 17.09.2O25, in a mechanical manner without considering the relevant aspects. The learned Single Judge had specifically referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [(2005) 4 S.C.C. 1I and B. Sreenivasulu vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.O8.2015, but the authorities, without following the said directions, simply rejected the claim of the petitioners' 2 -I

4. On the other hand, learned Special Government pleader appearing for the respondents submits that in W.p.No.6536 of 2019, dat<:d 28.03.2019, the learned Single judge directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court, referred to above, and pass appropriate orders.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that, vide Memo Rc.No. Z27g/H&S/2OIL-I dated 17.Cr9.2025, 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.6536 of .2019 and to the C.C.No.81/2020, fited by the Pet;tioners before the Hon'ble High Court Telangana, Hyclerabad and after verification of the conditions laid in the G.O.Ms.No.272, Finance & planning (Fl I-PC-III) Department, Dated 22.04.1994 & G.C\.(P).No.112 Fin & ptg (Fw.pc-ilr) Dept. dt:;23.07.1997, as there is no provision to regularise the services and they are not fuffiiling the Condition No.5 stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin & plg (FVI.PCJII) Dept. Dt.22.04.1994 and also Condition No.1 stipulated in the G.O.(p).No.112, Fin & plg (Ft l.Pc-fil) Dept. dt.23.07.1997, since the pet.itioners are not engaged against any sanctioned posts in the department and no worker post is j available in the cadre in the Department of Sericulture."

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that G.O.(P).No.112 is not applicable to the petitioners and that Condition No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.212 is also not relevant to case of the petitioners. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioners claim by the respondents vide order dated L7.09.2025 is in mechanical manner and not in accordance with law.

7. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it is to be noted that the scope of a Contempt Case is very limited. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 28.03.2019, directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court, referred to above, and pass appropriate orders. Technically speaking, the authorities have considered the case of the petitioners and rejected by order dated 17.09.2025, assigning reasons as stated above.

8. However, this Court is of the considered view that if the petitioners have any grievance with respect to the said rejection order dated L7.09.2025, they are at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. This Court, however, cannot interfere with the correctness of the said order in a Contempt Case. .- 4 In view of the above submissions made by both the learned g. counsel and in view of the order passed by the respondent authorities vide Memo Rc'No'2279/H&S/2019-5' dated 17'09'2025' the Court is of the considered view that the order passed by this Court has been complied with'

10. Accordinllly, the Contempt Case is closed' However' liberty is granted to tht: 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/-T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR d SECTION OFFICER To, Shri C. Parlhasaradhi, l.A.S., Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co- operative (horticultu reand Sericulture) Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad Shri L.Ventlaram Reddy, The Director of Horticulture and Sericulture, Government of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Shri K.RanraKrishna Rao, l.A.S., Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Departmert, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs tc GP FOR SERVICES lll ,High Court for the State of Telangana- One CC to SRl. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Advocate [OPUC]

2. 3

6. Two CD Copies

7. /V, r C)() "$E 2 C r[8 2026 * * ,?qT HIGH COURT DAf ED:2411012025 OROER CC.No.81 ol 2O120 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE. $40 v 2