The High Court · 2025

1 Shri C. Parthasaradhi, l.A.S. and 2 others, Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operative (horticulture and Sericulture) Department , State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Shri L.Venkakam Reddy, The Commissioner of Horticulture and Sericulture, Government of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Shri K.RamaKrishna Rao, I.A.S., Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. J 2 ...Respondents/Respondents Nos.1,2 and 6 in W.P.45949/2018 Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI. BONDEMPALLYRAMULU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondents : ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.76 OF 2O2O ORDER This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the orders of the Court, dated 27.02.2019, passed in W.P.No.45949 of

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.45949 of 2018, dated 27.02.2019, has not been complied with in its true spirit. It is contended that the respondents have passed the compliance order, dated 17.09.2025, in a mechanical manner without considering the relevant aspects. The learned Single Judge had specifically referred to the judgment rendered in W.P.No.36805 of 2018, dated 11.10.2018, but the authorities, without following the said directions, simply rejected the claim of the petitioners. I l 2

4. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that in W.P.No.45949 of 2018, dated 27.02.2079, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services as NMRs strictly 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.36B05 of 2018.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that, vide Memo Rc.No.2279/H&S/2019-2 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.45949 of 2018 and to the C.C.No.76/2020, filed by the Petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court Telangana, Hyderabad and after verification of the conditions laid in the G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW- PC-I) Department, Dated 22.04.1994 & G.O.(P).No.112, Fin & Ptg (Fw.Pc-ill) Dept., dt:23.07.1997, as there is no provision to regularise the services and they are not fulfilling the Condition No.5 stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.212, Fin & plg (FW.PC.III) Dept. Dt.22.04.1994 and also Condition No.1 stipulated in the G.O.(P).No.112 Fin & plg (FW.PC-III) Dept. dt.23.07.1997, since the petitioners are not engaged against any sanctioned 3 department and no the cadre in the worker post is Department of posts in the available in Sericulture."

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that G.O.(P).No. f 12 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 17.09.2025 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 27.02.2019, directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners 1 I in accordance with the judgment in W.P.No.36B05 of 2018, dated

11.10.2018, 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 17.09.2025, 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

9. counsel and in view of the order passed by the respondent authorities vde Memo Rc.No.2279lH&S/2O19-2, dated 17.09.2025, the Court is of the considered view that the order passed by this Court has been complied with.

10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach afresh, if they have any g neva nce. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Contempt Case, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA D PUTY REGTSTRAR .1 I ECTION OFFICER To,

1. Shri C. Parthasaradhi, LA.S. and 2 others, Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operative (horticulture and Sericulture) 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. 4. One CC to SRt. BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two ccs to GP FoR SERVTCES il ,High court for the state of rerangana. 6 One CC to SRT ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Advocate [OPUC] 7.Two CD Copies 1 i ,S I r-., ' () HIGH COURT DATED:241101202s ORDER CC.No.76 ot 2020 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE. (d-fi<s 14sHET 1R o Q 2I Jilt 2028 'v 7_ * I rJ 1'r_C * \--./ . t aollq6