CC/2413/2024 of Sri. Balachander Pillai Vs Mr. SATYA PRAKASH on 24 March 2026

[ 34311 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO NO:241 F Contempt Case U/s 1O to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for willful violation of the Orders of the High Court made in WP.No.21709 ot 2012 dated 23-06-2023. Between: Sri. Balachander Pillai, S/o. K. Madhavan Pitlai, Retd. KH/ COAR/O/CON/SC, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Business, Present H.No.34-1 16/1, Annapurna Colony East, Mallapur, HYDERABAD - 500 076, T.S. ENTj] Mr. SATYA PRAKASH, CHIEF ADMISTRATTON OFF|CER, RA|L NTRMAN BHAVAN, (Construction), SOUTH CENTRAL RA|LWAY, Secunderabad - 5000'17. ...RespondenUReepondent No.2 Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Kumar Gadipe Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Anjali Agarwal (sc FoR ENFORCEMENT DTRECTORATE) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO C.C. No. 2413 OF 2024 24.03.2026 Between Balachander Pillai, Hyderabad. Petitioner AND Satya Prakrsh, Chief Adm inistration Offi cer, Rail Nirman Bhavan (Construction), South Central Railway, Secunderat,ad - 5000 I 7. .Respondent ORDER' (p,er Hon'blc Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Hearr1 Mr. Ravi Kumar Gadipe, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A.njali agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant Contempt Case which has been filed alleging non- compliance cf the order dated 23.06.2023 in W.P. No. 21709 of 2012.

3. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of on the following premlses " Having considered the rival submissions made by the le'arned counsel on either side, this Court is of the

PSKJ A RRN,J cc 24t3 2024 view that the tssue involved in this writ petition ls squarely covered by the judgment of the Apu Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (l Supra). Therefore, this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of hts services in terms of qhe law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (l Supra) and pass appropriate orders within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "

4. Pursuant to the disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the petitioner approached the department by way of the representation dated l5.l I .2023. After due scrutiny of the same, the department has passed the order on 23.01 .2024 as follows: "(i) Regularisation of service has been amendedfrom 18.5 years to 2l years.

(ii) Restructuring of Pension: There is no change in the Basic Pay since the employee's Qualtfying Service has no ffict on the promotion earned. Hence, the pension which is fixed at Rs.7,545/- is in order. For all purpose the intervening period from Casual Labour service to the date of Regularisation only has been effected. This period has no snyfor the purpose any promotions.

(iii) All Other Service Benefits:

(a) Post Retirement Complimentary Pass (PRCP): The employee has been advised vide this ffice letter dated Ii.02.2024 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-4 to the Affidavit) due tg consequent upon the increase in

PSKJ & RRN,J cc 24t3 2024 Qualifying Service, the applicant is eligible for PRCP and needs to apply through HRMS module. Further, in case if applicant has any dfficulties in registering in HRMS can always approach the concerned Personnel Oficer for redresstng the issues tf ory, rather than filing a case before the- Hon'ble Court (b) Medical factlities: Stnce the employee has opted for RELHS (Railway Employees Liberal Health Scheme-1997), he is eligible for all Railway medicalfacilities (tv1 The applicant has referred to the orders pronounced in W.P. No 21709 of 20t2 dated ,13.06.2023, wherein 'the Court is of the view that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered ty the judgment of the Apex Court in (Jnion of India vs Iialresh Kumar. Therefore; thts Writ petition can be a'isposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services in terms of the law laid down by the Apu Court in Lrnion of India vs. Rakesh Kumar and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months fro* the date of receipt of a copy of this order.' As such the respondents have accordingly complied wtth the Hon'ble Court order in considering the Qualifying service and paying the settlement benefits w,; thout any violation. "

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said directions given by tlre department would not falr within purview of the due compliance ,rf the order. Rather the authority ought to have granted the

PSKJ & RRN,J cc 2413 2024 entire benefits to the petitioner that has flown from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v- Rakesh Kumart

6. However, on going through the directions issued by the Writ Court what is apparently evident is that the only direction issued was to 'consider' the case of the petitioner and to pass 'appropriate orders'. The term 'consider' and the term 'appropriate orders' in a strict meaning would clearly give indication of an element of discretion left with the authorities who have to take a decision. The Two terms under no circumstances have to be presumed that the Writ Court had allowed the prayer of the petitioner in its entirety and in the process, mandamus was issued.

7. The only direction was to consider in accordance with law and wisdom of the respondent keeping in view of the judgment of the Rokesh Kumar (Supra).

8. The respondent having duly considered and having passed an order on 23.01 .2y24,the veracity of the said order cannot be subjected to test in the course of exercising the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. I ' 2o1T (13) scc 3BB

9. If ar. all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order and is still claiming for something more than what has been granted, the only recourse available to the petitioner is to agitate the claim by filing a fresh petition assailing the order dated 23.01.2024 reserving the right of the petitioner.

10. The contempt case is, accordingly, closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Conr;equently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. PSK,J & RRN,J

SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR G To, /TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Mr. Ravi Kumar Gadipe, Advocate IOPUC]

2. one CC to Ms. Anjali Agarwal, isc rOn ENFORCEMENT DIRECToRATE) loPUcj

3. Two Ct) CoPies KAM/PSL 9s- i I I I I : i

,r' I t HIGH COURT DATEDi 24103t2026 sh" CC.No.2413 of 2024 CLOSING THE CC rotklz R @dtJ o I dt, QI: * LL IH ,$ $