The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CONTEMPT CASE No.344 OF 2o24 ." ORDER: This contempt case is filed with the following prayer: " -..to punish th.e respondent for uillful disobedience of this Hon'bLe Court Orders passed in S.A.1 102 of 20O0, Dt.31-10-2014. Consequentlg directed in IA.No.1 of 2O23. In SA 1Vo..l 102 of 2000 dt.8.8.2o23 in the interest of 1ustice. "

2. Heard Mr. Raghu Ram Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner No.2 and Mr. Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel hppearing on behalf of respondent

3. S.A.No.|lO2 of 20OO was filed before this Court by petitioner No. 1 (died) and this Court by order, dated

31.10.20 14, passed the following order: "The following circumstalces have to be taken consideration while awarding damages/compensation. Admittedly, the plaintiff was pregnant, she u,ent to Mumbai, she delivered a child on 1O-07.1!187, she unclerwent caesarean operation and she hzrd sent application for maternity leave dul1, informing the defendant her address particulars and by submitting medical certihcates. The defendant asked the plaintiff to join duty within 7 days holding that the plaintiff iail to join duty her services were terminated. It is clear that though agreement provides one month notice, no such notice was issued to the plaintiff. Therefore, the l.ermination is illegal. There .-i 2 was a direction by this Court to the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted application, but the defendant did not consider her case on the ground that there were no vacancies. The plaintiff has been kept out of service. Her termination is illega1. It appears that she was put to grcat mental agony and torture. Ultimately, she died on 21.O9.2O7O during the pendency of the appeal. Now, her husbald and son are before this Court. The services of the plaintiff were terminated on 28.07 .1987. The plaintiff was made to run from pillar lo post for 23 years. Having regard to the facts arrd circumstar-rces of the case, it appears that the compensation awarded earlier is not justihed and the amount has to be enhanced. The plaintiff calculated the dues of 279 rrror.th,s of salary at Rs.37,81,O0O/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I considep it just ald reasonable to award an amount of Rs. 15,OO,0O0/- towards compensation to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed. Since the plaintiff died, the question of ordering reinstatement does not arise. But, in circumstalces, the ptaintiff awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,O0,OO0/- towards damages/compensation to be paid by the defendant within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. The decree passed by the trial Court stands modified as follows: The plaintiff is a woman. She dies. Moreover, being a woman she is entitled for legal aid. In the circumstances, I consider it just arrd reasonable to direct the lower Court to deduct the arnount required for the purpose of paying court fee from the amount deposited by the defendant and to pay the remaining amount to the plaintiffs i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and 7 -) CC No l!! 211)r J they shall bc entitled to equal shares compensation awarded tor,'",ards damages." 1n

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner No.2 contended that in spite of order, dated 31.1Q.2O74' passed in S.A.No.1102 of 2000, respondent has not complied with the said order. That a suit in O.S.No.4 of 1996 was filed by petitroner No.1 (died) on the file of the District Munsif, Peddapalli, for declaring the termination of her service as illegal and sought reinstatement with back- wages. Said suit was allou,ed by decree, dated 28.03.1997 .

5. Aggrieved, respondent preferred first appea-l vide A.S.No.10 of 1997, the Appellate Court by judgment, dated

25.04.2OOO, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree, dated 28.03.1997, passed in O.S.No.4 of 1996.

6. Aggrieved, petitroner No.1 (died) preferred second appeal vide S.A.No.1102 of 2000 before this Court. This Court by order, dated 19.01.20 10, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court with regard to termination, as illegal and granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages instead of reinstatement with back wages. / CCNaM )l))1 4 7 . Petitioner No.2 filed review application vide I.A.No.1 of 2014 (S.A.M.P.No.1130 of 20141 rn S.A.No. 1102 of 2000 to review the judgment, dated 19.0i.20 10, passed 1n S.A.No.i 102 of 2O00 and the same was aliowed by order, dated 08.08.2014 and the judgment, dated 19.01.2010, passed in S.A.No. 1 102 of 2000 was recalled. After hearing the second appeal, this Court by order, dated 31.1O.2O14, allowed the second appeal ald modified the relief granted by the trial Court ald directed respondent to pay Rs.15,00,000/ to\ /ards total compensation within a period of two months with interest at the rate of 7.5%o per a,nnum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

8. Thereafter, respondent filed a review application vide I.A.No. 1 of 2Ol7 (S.A.M.P.No.37 of 2Ol7) in S.A.No.1 IO2 of 2000 and the said application was dismissed by this Court by order, dated O8.07.2022. Therealter, petitioner No.2 filed aI application vide I.A.No. 1 of 2023 in S.A.No.llO2 of 2000, for implementation of judgment, dated 31.10.2014. This Court by order, dated 08.08.2023, dismissed the application on ground that petitioner No.2 had to move I - ) execution application or contempt against respondent Petitioner No.2 filed the present contempt for implementation of order, dated 3l.LO.2Ol4, passed 1n S.A.No.11O2 of 2000.

9. Learned counsel . appearing on behalf of petitioner No.2 submitted that Rs. 15,00,000/ was awarded as compensation and is to be paid by respondent with interest at the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. Learned counsel further submitted that a total of sum of Rs.85,00,000/ is to be paid Petitioner No.2 is the husbancl of petitioner No. 1 (died).

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent contended that contempt case is not maintainable against respondent. That respondent was never connected with the St.Claire Convent School at Godavarikhani. Learned counsel further contended that the school was established by Singareni Collieries Limitecl, a Government Coal Mining Company jointly owned by Government of Telangana and Government of India. Purpose of the institution q,as to serve the needs of chiidren of employees. It is further submitted i I I I I I 1 f.,] '-'.1 a a) 6 that the school was established in 1986, that the management of Singareni Collieries requested the society of Franciscan Missionaries of Mary to administer the school since the said society was administering Sacred Heart School at Godavarikhani. That the society accepted and administered the school Lll| 2OO2'O3. It is a-lso submitted that the management of Singareni Collieries requested another society, Divine Word Education Society to take over the administration of school that the said society is administering th'e school at present' It is therefore submitted that there is no willful disobedience of Court orders, as respondent is not liable for payment'

11. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rivai submissions

12. A suit in O.S.No.4 of 1996 was filed by petitioner No' 1 challenging termination of her service' Tria-l Court by order, dated 28.O3.1997, decreed the suit Aggrieved, respondent filed A.S.No. lO of 1997, First Appellate Court by order, dated 25.O4 .2OOO, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment, dated 28.03.1997, passed in O.S.No.4 of 1996. a.S; 7 Aggrieved, petitioner No. 1 filed S.A.No. llO2 of 2000. This Court by order, dated 31.10.2014, confirmed the judgment and decree, passed by trial Court. It is observed that St.Clairs Convent School @ Sacred Heart School, N.T.p.C, represented by its correspondent, Godavarikhani, is a party respondent in S.A.No. l7O2 of 2000. Ex.p5 is a reply, dated 23.10.2023, by respondent to the notice, dated 1 l.Og.2023 (issued by learned counsel for petitioner No.2). Relevant portion in the reply is as folltws: "Now coming 6ack to your noticc, we do not admit any of the contents of your notice dated 11.O9.2023; except the content in the second para of your above mentioned notice. On 7O.1O.2O23, once again at the instruction of my superiors I came personally to Hyderabad. only to meel you along wirh your clienr in order to make arr attempt for an amicable settlement in the same above mentioned matter I made a few phone calls to you requesting l,ou to have a meeting towards some negotiation and amicable settlement in the above said matter/ su bject matter of your notice dated 1t.O9.2O23. After sufficient talk ancl consultation with you about. the said mattcr I lelt for Kazipet for few days, but waited for the response from your side: since thal was main concern. On 21.10.2023, I called you again, there was no response you then; btt on 22.10.2023 you sent a "whats-up message: ..Good. ^orning mcrdam Mr.S,rrmuel is not redd,V lor MOL|. Abiut to file contefiqrt. For ur infonru please.- Thereafter, seeing your message I called you over the phone at about , I 8 9:30 am and had a lengthy discussion over the matter. And while our conversaLion over the phone you informed that his demand is about sorle Rs.83,OO,OOO/- (eight three lakhs); after which you responded me saying that you will talk/inform to your client about our proposal and get back to me for which I waited. Since I had not much left before I move another place. [n the same a-fternoon at about 2:46 prlr, I sen[ you again whatsup message: ..Good aJternoon Sir. Were gou able to conto.ct Mr.John Samuel... Did. gou infonn him that ue are uilling go bg the court order d,ated. 31.7o.2O14...uthat uas his response...sttould I utait Jor a response." And you responded to me with a message: aGood. afternoon madann He did not come to contact. If he cone to contact for ang discussion. I u.till infonn z. . And again I responded n'ith mcssage: *Thank gou sir. I utill ua.it to hear if ang response from his side....". Thereafter I walted for 2/3 days. Under the given circumstances we are wondering whether we or your client has to frle a contempt petition for not complying with the orders of thc courts. Kindly you ald your client look back into pas numerous written claims and demands made by your client in the past till date; nowhere it reflected refers any of the court orders. Though all those claims and demands had mentioned the word 'court order' the dcmand amounts are totally different and varies lrom time to time, nor it tallies the amount was mentioned by the order of the court. For you reference, I would like to quote on such latest demand your client made in his written claim dated 06. 1 1.2023 to me: "To settle my wife dues Rs.71,19,687l- on 21.O3.2023, amicably, by depositing in my SBI A/C 6219336a674, SBI Yapral Bralch, Sec'bad by online transfer IFSC SBIN0O22112, Branch Code OO22712....." Does this kind of demands tally as per court order dated 3r.rO.2074? Since I didn't hear or see any response from your side I have no option left; hence this notice." 9

13. These are facts borne by record, on earlier occasions. This Court requested both counsels to arrive at an amicable settlement regarding the total amount. Alter instructions from parties, both counsels stated that respondent willing to pay an amount of Rs.42,50,000/- (Rupees forty two lakhs fifty thousand only) to petitioner No.2. When this Court queried rvhether respondent 1S willing to pay the amount, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that Member of Fralciscan' Sisters of Mary, Hyderabad, is appropriate person/entity liable to pay the arnount to petitioner No.2. Both pa-rties agreed for the amount and stated that they shall put a quietus to the litigation. Respondent is liable to pay the amount to petitioner No.2, Franciscan Sisters of Mary, Hyderabad, is not a party L respondent, this Court cannot direct the pa-yment by member of Franciscan Sisters of Mary, Hyderabad. Liability I I is on the respondent (contemnor) in the contempt

14. Learned counsel for respondent fairly submitted that respondent is presently in the Court and willing ro pay the amount to petrtioner No.2 by cheque. It is usual practice l0 that payments by mode of cheque(s) are not acceptable (by Court of law). Payments are by a demald draft (DD), the amount as agreed shall be paid and received. Amount of Rs.42,50,OOO/- (Rupees fort1, tw.o lakhs fifty thousand only) shall be paid by demand draft drawn in favour of petitioner No.2 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner No.2, her legal representatives, if any, and respondent shall put a quietus to the litigation in the subject matrer.

15. With the above observations, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall sta!d. closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUry REGISTRAR t/ SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRt I RAGHURAM PRASAD Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC to SRt. CH SAMSON BABU Advocate [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies GPJgh HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER GC.No.344 of 2024 \1o TH \) 14 Y 2 5 JUL 20?5 (' _l_, { t-:.rrCuil1..;- o(J .E * CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE