Writ Petition No. 34089 of 2013 · The High Court · 2025

: Smt. Akella Padma Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao Standing Counsel for Osmania UniversitY The Court made the following: OROER : I i I . a I .x& 1 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CONTEMPT CAS No.192s OF 2023 In WRIT PETITION N o-34O89 of 2O13 ORDER: Heard Smt. Akella Padma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationers and Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The petitioners approached the Court comf,laining violation of the orders of this Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34089 of 2013. by the respondent herein.

3. The relevant oortion i.e.. Daraoraoh No.1O of the order oassed bv this Court dated O5.O6.2023 oassed in W.P.No.34O89 of 2013 is extracted hereunderl " 10. Taking into consideration the vierw taken by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, 3ommercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785 referred to and extracted above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order No. MR.682/ 132/2009/Admn.I-1, dated 31.10.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent university and ther matter is I 2 remitted back to the 2nd respondent for passing fresh orders in accordance to law re-considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.01.2008 afresh duly taking into consideration the spirit of the orders of this Court dated 14.08.2013 passed in W.P.No.5339 of 2010, (referred to and extracted above), as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, duly communicating the decision to the petitioner. It is needless to observe that before oassino anv orders, the oetitioners s all be out on notace and afforded reasonable oooortunitv of hearino, dulv followino the orinciol s of natural iustice. However, there shall be no order as to costs." i

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed on record the proceedings dated 31.07.2024 issued by the respondent in compliance to the directions of this Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34089 of 2013 and contends that there is disobedience of the orders of this Court since admittedly as borne on record, the petitioners had not been put on notice and afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and the proceedings had been issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the observations of this Court in the orders dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34089 of 2013 3 and hence, the respondent needs to be punished under the Contempt of Co u rts Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent placing reliance on the averments made in th'e c:ounter afFidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 and also tre orders dated 29.08.2023 passed by the respondent in contpliance to the directions of this Court dated 05.06.20i13 passed in W.P.No.34089 of 2013, contends that the grievance of the petitioners had been considered and the request of the petitioners tc treat the service rendered by th<l petitioners on adhoc basis as regular service with effect from 23.06.1989 and

18.10.1991 respectively upto 25.02.2006 cannot be considered and the petrtioners had even filed W.P.No.il6096 of 2024 challenging the proceedings dated 29.08.21)23 issued in compliance to the directions of this Court daied 05.06.2023 passed in W P.No.34089 of 2013 and thereforer, the contempt proceedings against the respondent cannot be continued any further.

6. The tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent fairly submits that the petitioners had not been put on notice nor afforded reasonable opportunity of i I i I I I I i l i I i 4 hearing prior to the passing of the orders dated

29.08.2023 and 31.07.2O24 issued by the Respondent in compliance to the directions of this Court dated

05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34O89 of 2O13.

7. This Court opines that the respondent, admittedly, as borne on record, did not follow the specific instructions issued by this Court in its order dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34089 of 2013 and proceedings dated 29.O8.2023 and 3L.07.2024 had been issued to the petitioner rejecting the petitioners' request to treat the service rendered by the petitioners on Adhoc basis service as regular service with effect from the date of initial appointment and for grant of consequential benefits without putting the petitioners on notice and without affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in clear violation of principles of natural justice and also the orders of this Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34089 of 2013.

8. The Aoex Court in the i dqment reDorted in 2OL7 vol. 5 SCC 5()6 in Baranaoore Jute Factorv PLC. Mazdoor Gr n h BM C\ rnzl ft+lr6FG rrartlrtara Irrfa Fa .arr Dl a And Others. at Dara No 23 observed as under:- :"'#;€fl ,1 5 '23. As held bv this Court in DDA v Skiooer Construction co. (D-) Ltd., and ooinq Er steo further the Cou rt has dutw to ssue a nronr,Ate directions for remed in n h of the orders. In restitutive measures at anv staroe of proceedioqs." thin sd he ou k r 9 Takino into nsideratio n: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationers an,C the learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University appearing on behalf of the respondent, c) The operative portion of the order of this Court dated

05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34O89 of 2o1it in particular, paragraph No.1O (referred to and extracted:above), d) The proceedings dated 3L.O7.2024 and 29.08.2O23 issued by the respondent University in compliance to the orders of this Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34O89 of 2013, e) The fact as borne on record that the specific instructions issued in the order of this Court dated T 6

05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34O89 of 2013 directing the respondent to put the petitioners on notice and afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to follow the principles of natural justice admittedly had not been complied with by the respondent herein, f) The observations of the Apex Court in the Judgment reported tn 2OL7 vol.5 SCC 5O6 in "Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and Others Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. And Others", referred to and extracted above, The respondent is directed to remedy and rectify the mistake occurred in complying with the orders of this Court in particular the specific directions issued at paragraph No.1O of the order of this Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34O89 of 2013 within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders as indicated in the said order dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34O89 of 2O13 in true compliance of the directions of this Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.34O89 ol 2OL3, accordingly, the present Contempt Case is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .,w",7 7 t. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt Case, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD ISMAIL REGISTRAR D SECTION OFFICER To, DL '1 . One CC to Smt. Akella Padma, Advocate [OPUC] 2. one CC to Sri Ch Jagannatha Rao Standing Counsel for Osmania UniversitY [OPUCI

3. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DArED'.0210412025 ORDER CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1925 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION No. 34089 of 2013 ,. i a' j r4t 6 : t\, (-) i 11 ((( '2 a ..\. { CLOSING THE C.C. Lf ?A