AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ
This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience to the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.36199 of 2017.
Today, learned Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents would place before us a copy of G.O.Rt.No.129, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (D) Department, dated 23.02.2023, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in compliance with the order dated 22.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.36199 of 2017. The operative part of G.O.Rt.No.129 dated 23.02.2023 reads as under:
“6. Government, after careful examination of the matter hereby decided to implement the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the W.P.No.36199/2017, dated 22-09-2021 duly regularizing the services of Sri. B. Prabhakar, Retired Town Planning Chainman, Madanapalli Municipality from 01.07.1992 i.e. from the date of sanction of Minimum Time Scale as per proceedings No.707/921/C1, dated 30.06.1992 in pursuance of the orders of the APAT in O.A.No.758/92 instead of date of regularization of his services with effect from 07.03.2011 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.138, MA&UD(G2) Dept., dated 03.02.2011 and subsequent orders of the Municipal Commissioner, Madanapalli Municipality issue vide proceeding Roc.No.707C11991 dt.07.03.2011 for the purpose of computing the services of the individual only for pension and pensionary benefits, as a special case, subject to the following.
(i) outcome of the S.L.P. to be filed by the Department against the orders in W.P.No.36199/2017, dated 22-09-2021 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
(ii) review of the orders basing on the final orders in SLP (C) No.28583 of 2018 & batch in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
(iii) that the orders issued shall not be quoted as a precedence in other similar/future cases.
(iv) taking exemplary disciplinary action against the persons responsible for the delay in taking appropriate action in the matter.”
In view of the above, there is no point in keeping this contempt case pending.
Accordingly, this contempt case is closed. The bonds submitted by the respondents for their appearance are discharged.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.