The High Court · 2025

75. E.Anjali, W/o Sriramulu, aged about 55 years, Working as Full Tirne Contingent Employee, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri District.

76.A.Seethamma, Wo Jogaiah, aged about 49 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Government Seed Form, Akinepally, Bhadradri District. 77. S.Venkateshwer Rao, S/o Sammaiah, aged about 56 years, Worting as Full Time Contingent Employee, Government Seed Form, Ashwaraopet, Bhadradri Diskict.

78. T.Srinivasa Raju, S/o Suryanarayana Raju, aged about 47 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Government Tassar Seed Station, Venkatapuram, Bhadrad ri District. 79- A.Venkatanarsamma, Wo Balaiah, aged about 52 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Government Seed Form, Khammam, Khammam District

80. S.Sarveswara Rao, Sio Sammaiah, aged about 50 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Technical Service Centre, Khammam, Khammam District.

81. P.Mallakka, Wo Muthaiah, aged about 55 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Government Seed Form, Khammam, Khammam District.

82.G.Srinivas, S/o Chandramouli, aged about 46 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Government Seed Form, Khammam, Khammam District.

83.A.Sambaiah, S/o Bhagaiah, aged about 54 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Technical Service Centre, Khammam District-

84. T.Ramarao, S/o Veeraiah, aged about 57 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Government Seed Form, Khammam, Khammam District.

85. K.Venkataswamy, S/o Chandrappa, aged about 48 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Government Tassar Seed Station, Venkatapuram, Bhadradri District.

86. E.Laxmi, Wo Ramachandra, aged about 53 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri District.

87. K.Paparao, S/o Kanakaiah, aged about 49 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri District.

88. Padma, Wo Appanna, aged about 49 years, Working as Full Time Contingent Employee, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 Shri C. Parthasaradhi and 2 Others, l.A.S., Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operative (ho(iculture and Sericulture) Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Shri L.Venkatram Reddy, The Chief Commissioner of Horticulture and Sericulture, Government of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

3. Shd K.RamaKrishna Rao, l.A.S., Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Departmerit, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...CONTEMNORS Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to to punish the respondents under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of lndia and under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court act 1971 for willful disobedience and deliberate violation of the judgment passed by the Honourable Sri.Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili of this Honourable Court in W.P.No.46'186 of 2018 daled27l02l2019 and to pass lA NO: 'f OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the presence of the petitioner/respondent No.3 on 1210912O25 by recalling the orders dated 1410812025 in CC no. 12'l ot 2020 and pass lA NO: 6 OF 2025 Petition under Seclion 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to delete the name of Respondent No. 1 i.e., C. Parthasaradhi,lAS ,Prinicipal Secretary,Agriculture and Cooperative Horticulture and Sericulture department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad, in this Contempt Case No. 121 of 2O2O in WP No. 46186 of 2018 and pass lA NO: 7 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the presence of the respondent No 3 on 12logl2o25 in CC No '121 of 2020 in WP No 46186 of 2018 and pass lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ttrc circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the presence of petitioner/respondent No.2 on 1210912025 by recalling the orders daled 1410812025 in CC No. '121 of 2020 and pass lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ttre circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to delete the name of Respondent No.2 i.e., L.Venkatram Reddy, Commissioner of Horticulture and Sericulture, Government of Telangana at Hyderabad, in this Contempt Case No. 121 of 2020 in WP No. 46186 of 20'18 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to delete my name as Respondent No.3 i.e., Shri RamaKrishna Rao, lAS, Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad, presently working as Chief Secretary to Government of Telangana in this Contempt Case No. 121 of 2O20 in WP No. 46186 of 2018 and pass lA NO: 5 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the presence of petitioner/respondent No.1 on 1210912025 by recalling the orders dated 14tOBl2O25 in CC No. 121 of 2O20 and pass lA NO: 8 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the personal appearance of the Petitioner i Respondent No.3 in the instant Contempt case i.e., C.C.No.'121 of 202O on 19.09.2025 and pass such order / orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. BONDEMPALLY RAMULU 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 RAIESHWAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.121 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.46186 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, Iearned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order passed in W.P.No.46186 of 2018, dated27.02.2019, 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.33936 0f 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018, but the authorities, without following the said directions, simply rejected the claim of the petitioners. 2

4. On the other hand, learned Specia{ Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that in W.P.No.46186 of 2OlB, dated 27.02.2019, the learned Single Judge directed respondent No.1 to consider the proposal submitted by respondent No.2 and pass appropriaG orders regularization the services of the petitioners as NMRS, strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2l2, dated

22.04.L994.

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/2019-1 dated 17.09.2025, the case of the petitioners was examined and rejected. The relevant portion of the said memo reads as follows: "9. In compliance to the Orders in W.P.No.461B6 of 2018 and to the C.C.N?.121/2020, 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-III) Depaftment, Dated 22.04.1994 & G.O.(P).No.112 Fin & Plg (FW.PC-III) Dept. dt:2i.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 posts in the departmeat._ an,1 no worker post is 3 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 .O9.2O25 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 ludge, by order dated 27.02.20\9, directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the judgment in W.P.No.33936 oF 2011 l and batch, dated 02.05.2018. 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.O9.2025, 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 vrde Memo Rc.No.2-279lH&S/2019-1, 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, libefty is granted to the petitioners to approach afresh, if they have any grieva nce. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Contempt Case, shall stand closed. i I SD/. N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 7 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

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

2. Shri L.Venkatram Reddy, The Chief Commissioner of Horticulture and Sericulture, Government of Telangana' at Hyderabad'

3. Shri K.RamaKrishna Rao, l.A.S., Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Departmerit, State of Telangana, Secretariat' Hyderabad' 4. One CC to SRl. BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll ,High Court for the State of Telangana' TOUTI

6. One CC to SRl. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Advocate IOPUCI 7 Twp C0 Copies 'W HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 ORDER CC.No.121 of 2O2o CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE wf ,fzo@ t€ SIn I () 2 B JAtt 2026 a i), !,,.