The High Court · 2025

D 1. Sri. Abhishek Commissioner ustys, Municipal Corporation, Rep by its strict. Z. _Sr1 Vi.Gaqlham, lAS, Commissioner and Director, and Municipal Administration, Government of Telangana, A.C. Guards, Hydeiabad. 3. Sri. M.DanaKishor, l4S- The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA and UD Department, Secretaiiat, Hyddrabad. Respondents Gounsel for the Petitioners: SRI N RAMU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S RAHUL REDDY (SPECTAL GOVT.PLEADER) SRI R MADHAVI LATHA (sc FoR sERvrcE MATTERS) The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI N DATE: 05.12.2025 Between: M. Guru Linga Chary and four others AND Sri Abhishek Augustys, IAS Khammam Municipal Corporation, Commissioner, Khammam, Khammam District and two others. ORDER ...Petitioners Respondents The Contempt Case is filed seeking pulishment to the respondents under Sections l0 to 12 of the Conternpt of Courts Act, lg7l, for wilful and deliberate violation and disobedience in implementation of the order of this Court dated I?.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.9270 of 2021 andto pass such other order or orders.

2. This court, vide order dated 12.03.2024 in w.P.No.9270 0f 2021, directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders fbr regularization of the services of the petitioners,'as was done in the "/, 2 TMD,J cc 2442 2024 case of similarly placed ernployee, G. Venkateswara Rao, vide letter dated 27.12.2018, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the present Conternpt Case has been filed. 3- The order dated 12.03.2024 in w.p.No.9270 of 202[ was dispatched on 25.04.2024 and the period of three months expired in July, 2024. The respondenrs did not comply with the order of this Court and therelbre, the Contempt Case was filed on 29.10.2024. Though the respondents have been seeking time on one or the other ground fbr complying with the direction of this Court and on I1.11.2025, a copy of the proceedings dated r0.1l.zozs was filed before this Court, rvherein the Municipal Commissioner, Khammam, was directed to extend similar benefits as extended to G.Venkateswara Rao and to take necessary action in accordance with the conditions laid down in G.o.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22.04.1994, subject ro concurrence fiom the Finance Department, this Court observed that the Municipal Comrnissioner was yet to pass orders and therefore on I l.l I .2025, this Court had granted further time and the appearance of. the respondents was dispensed with on the said ground. ( L J TMD,J cc 2442 2024

4. Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has now produced a copy of the speaking order dated 03.12.2025 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that the Government has issued Ordinance No.8 of 2025 dated

25.11.2025 inserting Para 78 to 7G in the Telangana (Regularization of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization to Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 and that the Ordinance has come into force with retrospective effect from 25.11.1993. [t is subrnitted that in view of the Ordinance, the respondents are unable to comply with the directions of this Court and that the speaking order is now passed in compliance with the directions of this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that except for mentioning of the Ordinance which is applicable w.r.e.f.

25.11.1993, no reasons have been given in the speaking order as to why the petitioners' case is not similar to that of G. Venkateswara Rao and therefore, the respondents have committed blatant and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the Ordinance was issued on 25.11.2025 I J 4 TMD,J cc 2442 m24 w.r.e.f. 25.11.1993, whereas the directions of this Court were on

12.03.2024 and there was no review or writ appeal fited against the order of this Court. Therefore, the respondents are duty bound to comply with the directions of this Court in accordance with the rules prevalent as on that date. By repeatedly seeking time for compliance, the respondents have not acted in a bona fide manner and have kept . the matter pending rvithout any reason and are now trying to take shelter under the Ordinance. tt is a settled principle of law that no act can apply w.r.e.f. 25.11.1993 il'it is detrimental to the interests of the employee. The Ordinarrce. therefbre, cannot come in the way of the respondents in implemcntationicompliance with the directions of this Court passed prior to the said Ordinance. Therefore, the respondents are granted further period of tbur (04) weeks time to comply with the order of this Court and i[ the order is not complied, respondents No. I & 3 shatt be liable for punishment under Sections l0 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act with a line of Rs.2,000/- each as well as imprisomnent for a period of two (02) months each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo imprisonment for a further period ofone week. The substantial allowance is fixed at Rs.500/- per day each under Sections l0 and i2 of the Contempt of Courts Act. ) I \ \ 5 TMD,J cc 2442 2024

7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if dfrY, shall also stand dismissed.

9. List this matter on 09.01.2026 to file compliance report. SD/. K.AMMAJI DEPUW REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER \\TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CC to Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, Advocate [OPUCI 2. One CC to Sri R Madhavi Latha (SC for The Service Matters of MC OF KNR, NZD, RMG AND KHM)Advocate IOPUC]

3. Two CD Copies I 0 l ABK /PSL t y -r HIGH COURT DATED: OSl12l2O25 ORDER CC.No.2442 ot2024 1 HE -S7A O O JAN ?[?fi ..i F,n- ;a-' o iJ * i ;- I I J * ALLOWING THE CC W]THOUT COSTS a \apr