S.K.G.Basha v. Dr Nalin Shinghal And 3 Others
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE No: 2228 OF 2022 Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to Punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Orders of the High Court dated 24-08-2022 in W.P.No.2257812021.
Between:
S.K.G.Basha, S/o. lmam Hussain, aged about 57 years, Occ. BHEL R & D Casual worker, R/o .No.7-3-13, Ferozguda, Bowenpally Post, Secunderabad-S00 011, T.S.
...Petltioner AND
1. Dr. Nalin Shinghal, The Chairman & Managing Director, BHEL Corporate Office, 7th BHEL House, Siri Fort, New Delhi 110049.
2. Sri Upinder Singh Matharu, The Directo(HR), BHEL Corporate Office, BHEL House, Siri Fort, New Delhi 110049.
3. Sri Jai Prakash Srivastava, The Director BHEL House, Siri Fort, New Delhi 11004
4. Sri K. Ravi Shanker, The Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Corporate R & D Division, Vikasnagr, Hyderabad-S0O 093, T.S. (R & D), BHEL Corporate Office, 9.
...Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T. KISHTAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: CH. SAMSON BABU The Court made the folkcwing: ORDER
THE HOII'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHL'i,'I I)EVI C()NTEMPT CASE No.2228 of 2Ot it.
Q&D-EB:
The Conte mpt Case is filed alleging wilful clisobedience of the order cf this Court in W.P.No.22578 cl.2O2 1 dated 24.O8.2O22 lry the respondents and to trrunish the respondents fr r the same.
2. Learned c)unsel for the petitioner subrril.s :hat this Court had c irected the petitioner to mirl:e a fresh representation an<l directed the respondents tc <:onsider the - sarne again in accordance-with the directrons ol ttLe Court. It is submitte I that the respondents have r,:plied to the representation of tlle petitioner by letter ctated 15.11.2022. However, the reply of the respondents is nol as per the spirit and ten,>r of the direction of this Court. Therefore, according to hirn, the respondents have committed contempt of th s Court.
3. However, this Court finds that the dire<:iion of this Court was or ly to consider the representzrt.ion of the petitioner in a ocordance with the scheme lrerlred by the
PMO,] C.C.tto .2228 of 2022 respondents for regularization . of the services of the employees, The respondents have disposed of the representation and therefore it cannot be considered as wilful disobedience on the part of the respcndents. Horvever, if the petitioner 1S aggrieved by the response of the respondents, then the same can be challenged by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings.
4. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MisdellaiiecjriS applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
Sd/. CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUW REGISTRAR ('-+v.'r--- \- r)'
//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRl. CH. SAI4SON BABU, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to SRl. T. KISHTAIA!-|, Advocate IOPUCI
3. Two CD Copies PSR \.P
HIGH COUR-- PMD,J DATED:3011i 12422 .',:'
rt!
{ Ct-N r:J I a/1 !J = -:r c, CQ 't
ORDER
\ >r H$) i:=:-:2'
CC.No.222B cf 2422 DISMISSING l'HE: CONTEMPT CASE.
-22\:r /.-