logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1518 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Contempt Case No. 1173 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. N. JUSTICE HARINATH
Parties : R. Anuradha Versus V. Kiran Kumar
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Padmavathi, Advocate. For the Contemnor: Koteswara Rao Muthineni (Standing Counsel for Dravidian University).
Date of Judgment : 13-08-2026
Head Note :-
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Sections 10 to 12 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondent for wilful dis-obedience and non- compliance of the orders passed in W.P. No. 4077 of 2012, dated 07.01.2025 and pass)

1. The petitioner has filed the contempt case alleging non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.4077 of 2012, dated 07.01.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the writ petition was filed seeking declaration of the action of the respondent-University in not granting pay scale to the petitioner as per UGC Revised Pay Scale, 2006 and that Juniors to the petitioner were getting higher pay scales. This Court vide order dated 07.01.2025 directed the respondents to extend UGC Scales as applicable as on date to the petitioner on par with other Associate Professors named in the writ petition. The respondents were required to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.

3. The respondent-university has filed a counter on 19.01.2026 and additional counter affidavit on 27.02.2026 and it is stated in the counter that the orders of this Court are implemented. The proceedings dated 27.12.2025 are placed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply to the counter filed by the respondent University and it is stated that the respondent has not implemented the order passed. It is submitted that a condition precedent imposed vide proceedings dated 27.12.2025 and 29.08.2025 that any additional amounts paid in excess due to erroneous fixation or as pointed out by the audit shall be recovered in lumpsum cannot sustain legal scrutiny.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

6. The respondent has submitted the proceedings in compliance with the orders of this Court. The petitioner has filed any calculation memo which according to the petitioner was missed out by the respondent. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent University have passed proceedings complying the orders of this Court and it is open for the petitioner to point out the miscalculation/wrong calculation of any of the entitlements due payable to the petitioner by addressing the requisite correspondence with the respondent University. Insofar as the present contempt case is concerned no further orders are required to be passed and the contempt case is also closed.

7. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal