Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. This contempt case has been filed by the petitioners complaining non-compliance with the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15071 of 2019 by the respondents/contemnors, whereby this Court directed the respondents to implement the order dated 06.06.2016 passed in O.A.No.2740 of 2013 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, if the same has reached finality.

2. Heard Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioners were originally appointed as Reserve Sub- Inspectors in Armed Reserve/Andhra Pradesh Special Police in the year 2005. Subsequently, they were appointed as Sub-Inspectors (Civil) in the regular police recruitment in the year 2010 i.e., on 24.12.2010. Their seniority was fixed only from the date of their appointment as Civil Sub-Inspectors on 24.12.2010. Their seniority in the past service as Reserve Sub-Inspectors was not taken into consideration and was not counted for the purpose of giving promotions to them and for other purposes. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.2740 of 2013. The said O.A. was disposed of, by order dated 06.06.2016, with the following directions:

               “The issue involved in this O.A. is squarely covered by the Order in O.A.No.6285/2012, dated: 10-2-2016, therefore, the present O.A is also disposed of on the same terms with a direction to the respondents to count the seniority of the applicants in the cadre of Sub Inspectors of Police as Reserve Sub Inspectors of Police/ Armed Reserve Sub Inspectors/ APSP Sub Inspectors from the date of their initial appointment in the reserve cadres for counting their seniority for next promotion as Inspectors of Police and consider their cases for promotion as Inspectors of Police (civil) as per their eligibility and rules and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.”

4. Thus, as can be seen from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the O.A. was disposed in terms of the directions given in O.A.No.6285 of 2012, dated 10.02.2016, and the Tribunal has directed the respondents therein to count the seniority of the applicants/petitioners in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police as Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police/ Armed Reserve Sub-Inspectors/APSP Sub-Inspectors from the date of their initial appointment in the reserve cadres for counting their seniority for next promotion as Inspectors of Police and to consider their cases for promotion as Inspectors of Police (Civil) as per the eligibility and Rules and pass appropriate orders. This Court, by order dated 18.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.15071 of 2019, directed the respondents to implement the said order of the Tribunal.

5. Complaining non-compliance with the aforesaid directions, the present contempt case has been filed by the applicants/petitioners.

6. The 2nd respondent has filed counter-affidavit stating that the direction given by the Tribunal has been in fact complied with and the seniority of the petitioners in their past service in the reserve cadres is taken into consideration and counted to their service in the present cadre of Sub-Inspector (Civil) for effecting promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) and promotions were also given to them. It is further stated that the process of fixing their seniority notionally in the cadre of Inspector of Police is also under consideration and it is in process.

7. Along with the counter-affidavit, the respondents have filed a copy of the show-cause notice dated 15.11.2024 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, calling for objections from the affected parties with regard to fixing the seniority of the applicants/petitioners by taking into consideration their past service in the reserve cadre. As can be seen from the details mentioned in the said show-cause notice in a tabular form, it is evident that the initial date of appointment of the petitioners in their reserve cadres, which took place in the year 2005, was in fact taken into consideration and counted to their present service as Sub-Inspectors (Civil). Therefore, after counting their past service in the reserve cadre to the present service, promotions were given to them in the cadre of Inspector of Police (Civil). Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal has been substantially complied with.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Tribunal is only partly complied with and fixing of seniority notionally is not yet done by the respondents.

9. The said contention cannot be countenanced as it is devoid of any merit. As can be seen from the aforesaid direction given by the Tribunal, there is no direction to fix the seniority of the petitioners notionally. All that is stated as per the above direction of the Tribunal is to count the seniority of the applicants in the reserve cadre to the present cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) for the purpose of consideration of their cases for promotion as Inspectors of Police (Civil) as per the eligibility and rules and to pass appropriate orders. That has been done by the respondents herein. Further, the respondents have also taken steps to fix the seniority of the petitioners notionally by sending proposals to the Government. In the counter- affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, at para No.13, it is clearly stated that the competent authority for granting notional seniority is the Government and proposals were sent for granting notional seniority to the petitioners in the cadre of Inspector of Police and it is further stated that the petitioners have already been promoted to the cadre of Inspector of Police. Therefore, it is evident that the respondents have taken steps even for fixing the seniority of the petitioners notionally after giving promotions to them. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal has been complied with only in part and not substantially.

10. Therefore, as it is found from the material available on record that the order of the Tribunal has been substantially complied with, the respondents are not liable for any action for committing contempt of the order of this Court directing implementation of the order of the A.P.

Administrative Tribunal, as alleged, and as a consequence, the contempt case is closed.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.