The High Court · 2025

10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, their willful violation and intentional datory Orders of the High Court dated 1 Between: Ramala Devadasu, Sio. Adamu, aged ab 14-217, Srirampuram, Kalluru Village and ut 48 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. H.No andal, Khammam District ...PETITIONER/ PETITIONER AND

1. Shri Rajat Kumar, lAS,, Principal Sec (P.W.) Dept., State of Telangana, Dr. Hyderabad-500 022. 2 Shri O.V.Ramesh Babu,, Chief Engin SLBC Project,4th Floor, Jalasoudha B 082.

3. Shri D.Narsing Rao,, Superintending E Tekulapalli, Khammam District.

4. Shri M.Lakshmi Narayana,, Executive Kalluru, Khammam District tary to Govt., lrrigation and CAD .R. Ambedkar Secretariat, Saifabad, r, Nagarjunasagar Project and AMR ilding, Erramanzil, Hyderabad-500 gineer, NSLBC (O and M) Circle, ngineer, NSLBC (O and M) Division, (RRl to 4 names substituted as per th No.1/2025 in CC No.367/2025). Court Order dtd.21.03.2025 in lA ...RESP NDENTS/RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 4 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THOTA VA ALATHA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR S RVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER .,,, ; :.;,u{F';-*T THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT No. 367 OF 2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of order dated 13.O9.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 10794 of 2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar matters in C.C.No.323 of 2023 and batch, dated 22.1| .2024, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein afresh for grant of relief as per the directions of this Court arld three (3) months time q,as granted to comply with the directions of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is also similarly situated, he may also be granted similar relief in this contempt case.

3. Lcarned counsel for the contemnors also heard.

4. This Court disposed of similar matters in C.C.No.323 of 2023 and batch on 22.11.2024. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarit5r: "5.- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court had directed the respondents to file 2 their counter alfidavits. The r counter aIhdawit stating that periods from March 7992 to 2074-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, verifred and the particulars of the writ petitions were never the speaking orders passing by 6. This Court hnds t]:e rep pre-posterous. The direction o the petitioner had worked du whereas the respondents cl records frorn 7992 onwards defrnitely the name of the peti in the records. The respo misunderstood the directions o dodge t]le issue by stating records. As seen from the doc Contempt Case, the responden the records pertaining to en years 1983-88 were damaged to look into the records. Ther respondents have not looked records at all and they have i witl.oul any basis observing petitioner was not traced ou affidavit to this effect. This comrnission of an act of However, the writ petitioner documents or evidence to show as NMR by the respondents, upon the copies of the writ this Court and the counter respondents. Since in the coun writ petitions, the responde objection that the petitioners as NMRs, ttre presumption petitioners have been engage relevant period. 7. respondents cannot take a contentions in the counter department on the ear.lier oc absence of material to the contr that the petitioner has worked only 1 in number and since it i possible to verify the records d by pests, the respondents aJe case of t1-e petitioner afresh for directions of this Court. There is granted to the responden directions of this Court. In view ttrereof, this spondent No.4 has filed a records available for the 05, 2009-2012, 2013-14, 2OLA-2O, 2O2l-22 were the petitioners clairned in out and thus justified them. of the respondents to be this Court was to verify if g the years-1979 to 1988, to have verifred the If that was the case, ner would not frnd place dents apparently have this Court or are trying to they have verifred the ents filed along with the have clearly stated that gement of NMRs in the d it was not possible even fore, it is clear that the nto the relevant materia] ued the speaking order that the details of the and have also filed an ould but amount to the ury before this Court also has not hied any that he was ever engaged t for placing reliance tion hled by him before alhdawits frled by the r alhdavits in the earlier s have not taken any ereln were never engaged be drawn is that the as NMRs during the is of the op.inion that the tand contrary to their ts filed by their own ions and thus, in the , they have to consider NMR. The petitioner is contended that it is not e to damages of records required to consider the grant of relief as per the , three (3) monttrs time to comply with the :iim8r'r";t"

8. With these directions, the Contempt Case is closed wit}- a warning to the respondents to be careful in making their submissions before the Court. There shall be no rlrdcr as to costs.

5. In vieu, of the aforesaid, this contempt case is also closed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per the directions of this Court. The respondents are granted three months time to comply with the directions of this Court

6. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,( ;'''" SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI THOTAVANALATHA REDDYAdvocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA 3. Two CD Copies SS/I'SL W HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 \ i 2 ORDER CG.No.367 of 2025 1,,/, ,rR {HE S .i ra /./ -^^. J,* 12ilBm o6.5 (, t->l ..:. .,/ \ _i ,' CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE 5 1 t\ b I I .:\