B.V.S.R. MURTHY v. '1. Mr. V.C. Sajjanar

3. Smt. G.V. Pavithra, The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager TGSRTC Khammam Khammam - 507 002

4. Mr. P. Dinesh Kumar, The Depot Manager TGSRTC Khammam Depot Khammam -507 002 ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Panakanty Satish Kumar, Standing Counsel for TGSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CONT EMPT CASE No.12 1 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, tearned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri panakanty Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned counset appearing on behalf of the respondents No.4.

2. This Contempt Case is filed complaining violation of the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.p. No. 37602 of 20t4.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner received amounts towards settlement for the entire retirement claim due to the petitioner, the petitioner however had not been paid the back wages of the earlier period from 31.10.2012 to 13.07.2015 that is the period pertaining to the absence caused due to treating the petitioner as unfit yrde 2 cc l2l 2025 \.. \ proceedings dated 29.06.2OLI by respondents and therefore, the respondents are liable for contempt' 4- Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No'4 on the other hand places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavitfiledonbehalfofrespondentNo'4,inparticular Para Nos.14, 15 and 16 (referred to and extracted below)'

14. It is respectfully submitted that the settlements of all the retirement claims paid are furnished here under; i. PF paid an amount of Rs.98,099/- through Cheque No.936998, dated 25.08.2015' ii. Gratuity paid an amount of Rs' 1,11,331/- through Cheque No.809302, Cated 22.08'2015' iii. SBT paid an amount of Rs.4,000/- through Cheque No.396933, dated 29.07.2015. iv. SRBS paid an amount of Rs'11,080/- through Cheque No.467786, dated 08. 10'2015' v. SSB paid an amount of Rs'13,850/- paid vide Cheque No.809701, dated 31' 12'2015 ' I I I i I I I i I I l I I i t I I I i l I I ; I I I I - _rE ?.<;-- jl r 3 cc 121 2025 vi. Difference of SSB & Terminal Encashment Rs.4,574/- vide Cheque No.809797, dated 27 .O7.20t6.

15. It is submitted that in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.p.No.37602 of 2014, dated 03.06.2024 the petitioner,s Gratuity revised considering his out of service period and paid difference of Gratuity amount of Rs.9.695/- in the month ofJanuary 2025 through online.

16. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the wages from 31.10.2012 to 13.07.2015 since the Hon'ble High Court not allowed back wages. The petitioner is entitled only for grant of consequential benefits by treating the period of alleged absence caused due to unfit.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that there is no contempt on the part ot the respondents in complying with the orders of this Court dated 03.06.2024 passed in W.p. No.37602 of 2Ot4 and batch since there is no clear direction in the said order to release the back wages for the period of absence i.e., from 31.10.2012 to 13.07.2015 caused due to treating the petitioner as unfit. 4 cc t2t 2025 |l

6. Learned Standino Couns I submits that u Don the Detitioner makinq a reDre sentation eekinq release of back waqes for he period from 3 1.10.2012 to 13.O7 2O15, the same would be consider in accordance resoond ents to law, within a bv the reasonable oeriod.

7. Tak tn o into consideration (a) The facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, (c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, in particular Para Nos.14, 15 and 16 (referred to and extracted above). The Contempt Case is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation for release of the back wages pertaining to the period from

31.1O.2O12 to 13.07.2015 for the absence caused due to petitioner being unfit, within a period of one (1) l : l I i I I t i i I I I t t '..,- j: :. _. _er$-.:.:f/ 5 cc 121 2025 week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and upon the respondents herein receiving the said representation of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the same, in accordance to law, and pass appropriate reasoned orders, within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter, duly taking into consideration the order of this Court dated 03.06.2024 passed in W.p.No.376O2 of 2O14 and batch filed by the petitioner and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAL REGISTRAR SPUTY D \i //TRUE COPYII I \ S ECTION OFFICER S. Praveen Kumar Advocate [OpUC l Shanthi Bhushan Rao , Advocate [Op Panakanty Satish Ku mar Standing Cou nsel for TGSRTC To, '1. One CC to Sri T 2. One CC to Sri U 3. One CC to Sri loPUCl

4. Two CD Copies KamiPSL ,W HIGH COURT DATED:25107t2025 ORDER CC.No.121 ot 2025 I i i '-) ,) O o li \fi (+. I sEP 2[25 Lr {) '.-:l:.r' . r-'Jr --'. -.--- ...--:',,,:.-- 1 :I' I "',- CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE I t"b 16