Smt. K. Yeshoda v. Smt. Pramilasathpathi
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-09. Smt. K. Yeshoda v. Smt. Pramilasathpathi. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[321e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CAS E NO: 2344 OF 2024 Contempt Case under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Respondents herein for violation and willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 01. 08. 2023 passed in W. p. No. 2053B of 2025. Between: Smt. K. Yeshoda, W/o Late K. Nageshwar Rao Aged about 52 years, working as Kamati at Government Social Welfare Girls, Hostel Husnabad, Husnab5 Mandal, Karimnagar District. ... Petitioner AND Smt. Pramilasathpathi, l. A. S. , District Collector (SCDD) Karimnagar District Karimnagar 2 Sri K. Nageshwar, Deputy Director, Schedule Caste Development Department, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 N Srldhar, S/o and_age not known to the petitioner, Principal Secretary to Govt. , Scheduled Caste Development Dept. , Secretariat, Hyderabad.
' 4 Sandeep Kumar Sulthania, S/o and age not. known to the petitioner, principal Secretary to the Govt. , Finance Dept. , Telangana, Hydera'bad. (Leave g_ranted to file the present CC against R3 and R4 and impleaded as per the Court Orders dtd. 17. '10. 2025 in lA Nos. 2 and 3l2O2S in CC No. 234412024). ... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. MALAHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-Ill The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIC;H COUITT FOR THE STATE OF I ELANGANA AT HYDT]RABAD ]'HE HONOUIIABLE SMT. JUSTICE, T. MAI) {AVI DI]VI (]ONTEMPT CASE No. 2344 OF 2021 DATE: 03 . 12. 2025 Betwe en Smt. K. Yeshoda Petitioner AND Smt. Pramilasathpathi, I. A. S. , District Colleclor (SCDD) Karirnnagar Disrrict Kalirrnagal and three others. Respondents ORDER 'l'his Conternpt Case is flled secking puni, ment to the rcspondents undcr Sections l0 to l2 ol the Contempt rf Courts Act, 1971, fbr violarion and witfur disobedience or rhe order of this coun dated 01. 08. 202.
i passed in W. p. No. 2053g of 2023 an, to l)ass such other order ol ordcrs 'l-his 2' Cor-rrr. vidc order dared 0r. 0g. 2023 in w r. No. 2053g of 2023 had directed respondents No. 3 and 4 therein r( co. sider the ) \ MD. l cc 214. 1 2014 ) - to appropriatc orders thercon representation of the petitionet and pass of receipt of a copy of within a period of six (06) weeks from the date was seeking regularization of her services this order. The petitioner i'e',03'05'1991, as with effect from the date of her initiat appointment was done in the case ol a sirnilarty situated employec' i. e. , Smt. M. Shantha. It was stated that the seruices of the said similarly ptaced employee had been regularized from the date of her initiat appointment. Alleging non-compliance of the orders of the Couft, the present Contempt Case has been filed' 3. The petitioner claims to have made several representations to the authorities for con-rpliance of the directions of this court; but sincc.
no action was taken, the Contempt Case has been filed' 4. Respondent No. l filed a counter affidavit stating that' in compliance with the directions of this Cou(, he submitted a detailed report dated 26. 10. 2023 to the Commissioner (SCDD)' Telangana' Hyderabad, for taking appropriate action on the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services from the date of her initial appointment. The Commissioner (SCDD) also addressed a letter dated 28. 02. 2024 to the Government in this regard' By endorsement dated I\'II)J cc 2-'l l. l 102,1 J F I;] i:i 27. 10. 2023, the petitioner was inlormed that her r(( uest would be Y'. corsidered af,er recc'ipt of orders from the comnrs;ioner and the Gove mment, as the l)istrict Collector is not the con,l ctent authority fbr. regularization of appoint,tents. ln the meantinr: the petitioner ll Ied the Contenrpt Casc. It is lurther stated th. ri thereafter. , the Goycrrment, through letter dated 29. 05.
2025, <iecitl,: I to regu larize t5e services ol- the petitioner with effect from 0l. l2. l )15 as Karnati and also sanctior-rcd consecluent. ial lnonetary benefits ti rrn the date of hc. r regular appointmcnt under the schcme for relief irrr, rehabilitation ol victims of atrociries belonging to SCs and ! l. s issued in C O. Ms. No. 29. Social Wellar. e (H) Deparrmenr, dated ( g. 03. 19g5 and inlb,red the Dist. ict Collector to take necessary acti. r in the matter. On the basis ol' the instructions of the Gover. r r rent and the Conrrrissioner, an endorsement dated 12. 06. 2025 has ,gsn issued to the pctitioner infbrn-ring her that her services were r. Lr . Lrlarized with cfl-ect from 0l . 12. 2015 and that she had already becr claiming the monetary benelits froni 01. 12. 2015 and at present, no r, w action is to be takcn in the rnalter. It is lurther stated that aggrie. , cl by the said endorsernent, the petitioner subrnitted another repre: t ntation dated 16. 06. 2025, which was for.
war. ded to the Commission: (SCDD) for t- . -i Tlvll). 1 cc 2ll. l 202,1 further instructions and the Commissioner, in turn' addressed a letter dated 26. 06. 2025 to the Principal Sccretary to Govetrment and respondent No. t had also addressed to tlic Principal Secretary' SCDD on0l. 07. 2025,og. o7,2025andl6. 07. 2025respectively. Howcvcr,no date of filing Govcrntnent tilt the were received from the instructions of the counter. Thus, according to him, the order of this Coun has been complied with by considering thc petitioner's representation and there is no witful disobedience on his parl' 5. Learned Government Pleader fbr Services-lll' retying upon the averments made in the counter atfldavit, submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved, she has to challenge the said endotsement and there is no contempt of Courl and hence, the Contempt Case has to be closed. 6.
After hearing the matter, at the adn-rission stage' this Couft was of the opinion that the orders of this Court have not been cornplied with, inasmuch as the respondents have not explained as how the case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of Ms' Shantha' Thereaiier' the l were issued regularizing the proceedings dated 13 'l '2025 i'e'' the date of her initial appointment services of the petitioner from '\- / I\IDJ cc 2',l. tr 202{ ) 03. 05. 1991 and the consequential monetary benefit were granted u . e 1-. 01. 12. 2015 i. e. , lrom the date ol her regular ap r rintrncnt. lr is stated that these p. oceedings werc passed to av. ic fur. ther regal complicaLions in the matter. 7. Lea,red counsel for the petitio,er, however, subr itted that after leceipt of the said proceedings, the petitioner has made a representation dated l8. ll. 2OZ5 requesting that her ray shoulcl be Ilxed w. e. l-. 03. 05. 199 I and also seeking sanction of hc rnedical leave Iiom 14. 09. 2019 ro 19. 0r.
2020, for which an applicari rn had alrcady becn subrnitted 8. IJaving regard to the rival contentions and r[: ,ateriar on rccorcl, this Clourt tlnds that the petitioner was initialll rppointed uide procecdings dated 03. 05. 1991 and her services Ira. ,e nou. been regulalized tirrn-r the date ol' initial appointment. 1ou. ever, pay llxatior-r has been done only from the date of her regul, r appointntent. i. c.. 01. 12. 2025. Having regularized her services u,. : L 03. 0_s. 1991. thc pay o1'the petitioner also has to be t'ixed notionallr lrom the date o1- hc. initial appointlnent, and monetary benefit nrrr be exte,ded *-... *,'1 TN'ID. I cc 2l{,1 202J lrom 01. 12. 2015. The respondents al'e therefore directed to pass orders accordinglY. 9. As far as cot-r-rpliancc with the orders of this Courl to cousider the representation of the petitioner is concerned' this Court is satistled that the order ol this Court has been complied rvith' 10.
The Contempt Case is accordingly ctosed' If thc petitioner has proceedings' any further grievance, she may initiate appropriate There shatl be no order as to costs' also stand petitions, if anY, shall Pending misceIlaneous dismisse d. Sd/. V. KAVITH DEPUW REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One GC to SRI A. MALAHAR RAO' Advocate [OP lll, High Court for the State of Telangana 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES tourl 3. Two CD CoPies NVB/DL PNc. , HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 iAiE c. ORDER )' CC. No. 2344 of 2024 : :B 202$ ) ? 6 li ) \, 'li f. ::SPl 1C CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE 6 c.. ,-\*' \(,\
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.