Telangana High Court
CC/571/2009 of M.Kesava Reddy, Vs The Secretary, on 31 December 2009
B. PRAKASH RAO C.C. No. 571 of 2009 DATED: 31.12.2009 Between: M. Kesava Reddy .. Petitioner And 1. The Secretary A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society 2. The Principal, A.P. Residential School 3. The Principal Secretary, Education Dept. .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Contempt
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO
C.C. No. 571 of 2009
DATED: 31.12.2009
Between:
M. Kesava Reddy .. Petitioner
And
1. The Secretary
A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society
2. The Principal, A.P. Residential School
3. The Principal Secretary, Education Dept. .. Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:-
This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience on thepart of the respondents in complying with the order dated 14.02.2005passed by this Court in W.P.No. 519 of 2004.
This Court, on 14.02.2005, while allowing the writ petition,observed as follows:
“The writ petition is accordingly, allowed, directing therespondents to take into consideration the aforesaidobservations and consider the petitioner’s case for regularappointment to the post of Librarian and further directed thepayment of the salary on the same scales as applicable to thatof Librarian from 30.09.1994. The entire exercise shall becompleted within a period of three months from the date of acopy of this Court. No costs.”
When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri K. Durga Prasad,learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that theorder dated 14.02.2005 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 519 of 2004has been complied with and the proceedings in compliance of theorder, have also been issued, as such, no further orders are necessaryin this Contempt Case.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forrespondent Nos.1 and 2, no furthers orders need be passed in thisContempt Case, and accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. Nocosts.
_________________
B.PRAKASH RAO, J
31[st] December, 2009
bcj