Lingala Lazaras v. Dr. Rajat Kumar, I.A.S.

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI

Judgment date: 2024-11-22

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-22. Lingala Lazaras v. Dr. Rajat Kumar, I.A.S. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

321e ] [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T,MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE NOS: 323, 429,434,442 AND 450 0F 2023 CONTEMPT CASE NO: 323 OF 2023 Contempt Case filed under Sections lOlo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 197'l to punish the respondents herein for their willful violation and dehberate disobedience of the Orders of the High Court dated 23'08-2022 passed in W. P. No 9861 of 2021. Between: 1. Lingala Lazaras, S/o. George, aged about 51 years, Occ. Coolie, Rio Chinnagopathi Village, Konigerla Mandal, Khammam District 2. Puli Venkateswarlu, S/o. Suryanarayana, aged about 51 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Yennavalli Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District ... Petitioners / Petitioners AND 1. Dr Rajat Kumar, l. A. S. , Secretary to Government, and CAD(P W. ) lrlgqtion Depar[ment, State of Telangana, T. S. Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2.

Shri Shankar Naik, Chief Engineer, New R & B Guest House, Khammam-507 002 3. Shri D. Narsinga Rao, Superintending Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Circle, Tekulapalli, Khammam Dist 4. Sri tM. Lakshmi Narayana, Executtve Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Division, Kalluru, Khammam Dist ... Respondents / Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Thota Vanalatha Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 GP for Services - ll CONTEMPT CASE NO: 429 0F 2023 contempt case filed under Sections 10 ro 12 of contempt of courts Act, 1g71 to punish the respondents herein for their wrllful and deliberate disobedience of the Orders of the High Court dated 23-OB 2021 made in W. p No 15829 of ZO21 . Between: L Undeti Yesurathnam, S/o. Ramarah, aged about 50 years, Occ Labour, R/o Suvarnapuram Village, Mudigonda lVaridal, Khammam District 2. Rao, S/o_ Kannaiah, aged SqyapyAlQa. OLl about 51 years, Occ Labour, R/o H. No. 4-89, L. B. Nagar, Khammam, Kh-ammam Distri6t 3.

Medametla Venkate. swara_[g-or. Rao, aged about 49 years,Occ. 9lo_A4utyala Labour, R/o H. No ti-5-559/41 NSp Roid, Khammim, Xnam. ani-Oisi' 4. S/o. Venkatjr. ratnam, aged 50 years, Occ. Pi1?. 1:^9! il-rrjeevi ? bout Labour, K/o. Korha venkatagiri Village. Billupadu post,Thallada tvlandar, Khammam District 5. Lingala Ravi Kumar, S/o Lazar, aged about 51 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Chinnagopathi Village, Konijerla trlan-dal, Khammam'District 6. Valabajl] Ravi Chandra, S/o. Chandrarah, aged 50 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. H. 'l No. 1-9-210, Khammam Urban Mandal, Kh'ammam District 7. Antholi Raju, S/o V. enkates-warlu, age_d about 52 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Raghunadhapalem Village, Khammari District ri B. S-haik Madaru, S/o. Hussainu, aged about 48 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Kotha I Venkatagiri Village, Brllupadu polt, Thallada M'andal, Khamm;m Disi;i;t" 9. S/o. Jeev-aiah, aged llalqngr_ [a!? [aralu about 49 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. H. No. 5-2-3412, Shantinagar, Khamm5m, Khammam'District 10.

Kurella Narasimha Rao, S/o. Jeevaratnam, aged about 50 vears. Occ. Labour, R/o. Chinnagopathi Village, Konigerla Ma"ndat, Khimmam'Oirtii. t' .. Petitioners / Petitioners Nos. . t3, 2 to 6, 11 to 15 & 16 AND 1. Dr. Rajlt Kumar, I A g princrpal Secretary to Government, lrrigation & CAD State of Tbtangana, T's Secretariat, eRkH Ein;v"nI ! l. WJ-D,. e:rtrent. SarlaDao, Ftyderabad 2. Shri Shankar Naik Chief Engineer, New R & B Guest House, Khammam _ 507002 3 shri D Narsinga Rao, srperintending Engineer, NSLBC (o & M) circre, Tekulapalli, Khammam District 4 Sri M Lakshmi Narayana,. Executive Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Divrsion, Kalluru, Khammam District ... Respondents / Respondents Nos. . l to 4 Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Thota Vanalatha Counsel for the Respondents Nos 1 to 3: Counsel for the Respondent No.

4 : GP for Services - ll CONT EMPT CASE NO: 434 OF 2023 contempt case filed under sections 10 to 12 of contempt of punish the respondents herein for their willful and deliberate disobedience Orders of the High Court dated 23-08-2022 made in W'P. No. 9849 of Between: Occ 1. Padala Narasirnha Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 51 years, Balapet Village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District 2. Poluri Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Krishnaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ Annarugudem Village,Thallada Mandal, Khammam District 3. Pasupuleti Ravi Krishna, S/o. Babu Rao, aged 51 years, Occ. Coolie, Annaiugdem Village,Thallada Mandal, Khammam Distric 4. Lingala Yadagiri, S/o. Yohanu, aged. about 50 y99r. s, . Occ. Chinnagopathi-Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District 5. Lingala Kamalakar, Sio. Koteswara Rao,,-aged 49 years, Occ. Coolie, Chi-nnagopathi Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District 6. Kannapogu Prasad, S/o. Muthaiah, aged about 50 ye^ars,. Occ.

Kothaven-katagiri Vrllage, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District ... Petitioners / Petitioners AND 1. Dr. Rajat Kumar, l. A. S. , Prl. Secretary to Government, -lrrigation Depariment, State of Telangana, T,S. Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2. Shri Shankar Naik, Chief Engineer, New R & B Guest House, Khammam 507002 3. Shri D. Narsinga Rao, Superintending Engineer, NSLBC (O & Tekulapalli, Khammam District 4. Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, Executive Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Kalluru, Khammam District ... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Thota Vanalatha Counsel for the Respondents Nos 1&2 : - Counsel for the ResPondent No. 3 & 4: GP for Services ll - CONTEMPT CASE NO: 442 OF 2023 Contempt Case frled under Sections 1O to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1 971 to punish the respondents herein for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the Orders of the High Court dated 23-08-2022 made in W. P No 9930 of 2021 Between: Dubbala Veeranarayana, S/o. Rangaiah, Aged about 5.

,l years, Occ. Unemployee, R/o. Venkatagin Village, Thallada Mandal, Kharnmah District ... Petitioner / Petitioner No. 2 AND 1 Dr Rajat Kumar I A S , Prl. Secrelary to Government, lrrigation & CAD (p. W. ) Department, State of Telangana, T. S. Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Saifa6ad, Hyderabad 2. Shri Shankar Naik, Chief Engineer, New R & B Guest House, Khammam - 507002 3 Shri D Narsinga Rao, Superintending Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Circle, Tekulapalli, Khammam District 4. Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana,, Executive Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Division, Kalluru, Khammam District . Respondents / Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Thota Vanalatha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 & 4: GP for Services ll - CONTEMPTCASE NO: 45OOF 2023 Contempt Case frled under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for their willful and deliberate disobedrence of the Orders of the High Court dated 23-08-2022 made rn W p No 9901 of 2O2j Between: 1.

lvleda Sarabandi, S/o. Venkaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ- Labour, R/o. Uppalamadaka Village, Vyra Mandal, Khammam Didtrict 2. Manne Raghavaiah, S/o. Narayana, aged about years, I? Snlg 51 Occ- Labour, R/o. Chinakorukonda Village, Kalllru [r/an-dal, Khammam bistrict 3. Ravuri Appa Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ_ Labovur. R/o. Chinakorukonda Village, Kallur IMandal, Khammam brstrict . Petitioners / Petitioners No. 2 to 4 AND 1 Dr. Ra. 1at Kumar, l. A. S. , Prl. Secretary to Government, lrrigation & CAD (p W ) Department, State of Telangana, T. S. Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Saifa6ad, Hyderabad 2. Shri Shankar Naik, Chief Engineer, New R & B Guest House, Khammam - 507002 3 Shri D Narsinga Rao, Superintending Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Circle, Tekulapalli, Khammam Dist 4. Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, Executive Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Division, Kalluru, Khammam District ...

Respondents / Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Thota Vanalatha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1&2 : - Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 & 4: GP for Services ll - The Court made the following Common Order : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE T. MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE NOS . 323, 429, 434. 442 and 450 0F 2023 COMMON ORDER: These Contempt Cases have been filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the orders of this Court dated 23. Og . 2022 and to punish the corltemnors under Sections 1O to I2 of the Contempt of Courts Act and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice. 2. This Court vide orders dated 23. 0g . 2022 has directed as under "this Court deems it fit and. proper to c)irect the respondents tct uerify u,thether the petitioners haue euer worked as claimed by theminthrz years 1979 to 19,98 and if the petitioners ,-tere found.

to haue worked and haue not been regulaised, then to consider engaging the petitioners herein in ang casual/ regular uacancies or anA other equiualent posts of Lascars in near future. If, anA reason, -fo, it is not possible to engage their seruices again, tle respond_ents are d. irected to consider or frame a scheme pagment for o. f some reasonable and suitable compensation to the petitioners in lieu of engagenlent of their seruices. Th,e entire exercise shall be completed uithin a peiod of (4) months the date four from of receipt of a copg of this order" 3. In compliance thereof, the respondents have issued speaking orders dated 24. 12. 2022 to each of the petitioners stating that they have verified the records of concerned office i. e. , Executive Engineer In-igation Division No-4, KaIIuru and it was found that the petitioners have never worked under the control of respondent No. 4 i. e.

, The Executive Engineer NSLBC O&M Division Kallur (now Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No. -4, Kalluru) during the years 1979 to 1988 as claimed by the writ petitioners in their writ affidavits and therefore, they were not eligible for re-engagement in any casual/regular vacancies or for any suitable compensation as directed by the Court. Thus, alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of directions of this Court in passing of these speaking orders, these Contempt Cases have been filed 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these cases have a long chequered history and that the petitioners herein have filed writ petitions on an earlier occasion as well and during the adjudication process of the said writ petitions, the respondents have never taken a stand that thr: petitioners herein \. r. ere never engaged by them as NMRs nor that the petitioners never worked with them.

It is submitted that for the first time and that roo after the lapse of long duration, such a stand u,as taken in this writ petition and therefore, the Court had directed the respondents to verify the records and if it was found that the petitioners have been engaged earlier, to consider their re_ engagement or to consider payment of suitable compensation in lieu of re_engagement. It is submitted that u,hen similarly placed persons required information under the RTI Act about their engagement, the respondents had replied that the concerned records were not available as they were damaged due to pests. It is submitted that the respondents, in spite of such contentions, have passed the speafting orders in the case of the petitioners herein, stating that they have verified the records and tound that the petitioners have never been engaged as daily wage workers and therefore, they were not eiigible for re-engagement or for any compensation as directed by this court.

It is surbmitted that such contentions are nothing but clear misrepresentation before this Court and hence amounts to violation of the orders of this Court. . i. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at length, this Court had directed the respondents to hle their counter affidavits. The respondent No. 4 has hled a counter affidavit stating that the records available for the periods from March 1992 to 2OO5, 2OO9- 2012, 2073-t4, 2014-15, 2015-16, 20t6-17, 2018-20, 2O2l-22 were verilied and the particulars of the petitioners claimed in the writ petitions were never traced out and thus justil-red the speaking orders passing by them. 6. This Court finds the reply of the respondents to be pre-posterous. The direction of this Court was to verify if the petitioners had worked during the years 1979 to 1988, whereas the respondents claim to have verified the records frorn 1992 onwards.

If that were the case, definitely the narnes of the petitioners would not find place in the records. The respondents apparently have misunderstood the directions of this Court or are trying to dodge the issue by stating that they have verihed the records. As seen from the documents Iiled along with the Contempt Case, the respondents have clearly stated that the records pertaining to engagement of NMRs in the years 1983-88 were damaged and it was not possible even to look into the records '-7 Therefore, it is clear the respondents have not looked into the relevant material records at all and they have issued the speaking orders without any basis observing that the details of the petitioners were not traced out and have also filed an affidavit to this effect. This would but amount to the commrssion of an act of perjury before this Court.

However, the writ petitioners also have not filed any documents or evidence to shorv that they were ever engaged as NMRs by the respondents, except for placing reliance upon the copies of the writ petitions filed them before this Court and the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. Since in the counter affidavits in the earlier writ petitions, the respondents have not taken any objection that the petitioners therein were never engaged as NMRs, the presumption to be drawn is that the. petitioners have been ( engaged as NMRs during the relevant I period. 7 In vierv thereof, this Court is of the opir. rion that the respondents cannot take a stand contrary to their contentions rn the counter alfidavits filed by their own department on thc earlier occasions and thus in the absence of material to the con trary, they have to consider that the petitioners ha,,,e u. orked as NMRs.

The petitioners are only 22 in number and since it is contended that it is not possible to verify the records due to damages of records by pests, the respondents are required to consider the cases of the petitioners afresh for grant of relief as per the directions of this Court. Therefore, three (3) months time is granted to i the respondents to compry with the directions of this Court. 8. With these directions, the Contempt Cases are closed with a warning to the respondents to be careful in making their submissions before the Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall a-lso stand closed. Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I I IY' SECTION OFF ICER To, '1. Dr, Rajat Kumar, LA. S. , Secretary to Government, lrrigation and CAD (p. W. ) Department, State of Telangana, T. S. Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2. Shri Shankar Naik, Chief Engineer, New R & B Guest House, Khammam-SO7 002 3. Shri D.

Narsinga Rao, Superintending Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Circle, Tekulapalli, Khammam Dist 4. Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, Executive Engineer, NSLBC (O & M) Division, Kalluru, Khammam Dist 5. Two CCs to the GP for Services ll, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri Thota Vanalatha Reddy, Advocate tOpUCI 7. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:22111t2024 / . ,/. COMMON ORDER ll il: l';lh i1. CC. Nos. 323,429,434,442 (' and 450 of 2O2S CLOSING ALL THE CCs

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.