Oral Order:

1. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing online assisted by Sri K. Ashok, learned Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.

2. The present Contempt Case has been filed against the Respondents complaining of the willful violation of the Award passed by the Labour Court, Ananthapur dated 14.07.2006 in I.D.No.315/2000. The operative portion of the said Award is usefully extracted hereunder:

                  “In the result the petition is allowed partly. The petitioner herein shall be absorbed into one of such vacancies as referred in B.P. (P & G Per) Ms.No.36 dt.18- 5-1997 issued by the Member Secretary of the Respondents A.P State Electricity Board within one month from the date of publication of the Award. He shall be entitled for continuity of service on par with other employees who were absorbed under the said proceedings of the Personnel Officer dated 18-5-1997 but without attendant benefits and back-wages. The Award is passed accordingly.”

3. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing online for the Respondents, has drawn the attention of this Court to the various documents in the Counter Affidavit of Respondent No.4 dated 04.12.2025 and would submit that the Respondents have deposited an amount of Rs.19,03,098/- and had transferred the same into the bank account of the Petitioner.

4. The facts on record would also indicate that the challenge to the said Award passed by the Respondents ended in dismissal thereby, rendering the Award final against the Respondents.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Award of the Labour Court dated 14.07.2006 has not been implemented to the fullest extent. He would submit that the Petitioner was absorbed into service of the Respondent vide Proceeding dated 17.09.2025 indicating that the Petitioner is absorbed with effect from 09.10.2006 which is the date of publication of the Award in I.D.No.315/2000. However, it is stated in the said Order that the absorption is in terms of B.P. (P&G per) M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. The Award of the Labour Court also would refer to B.P. (P&G per) M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. After the Proceedings were issued by the Respondent on 17.09.2025, the Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Piler has issued a Memo on 24.11.2025 and require him to show cause as to why he should not be reverted from the post of Junior Engineer to the Junior Lineman. The reasons stated by the Executive Engineer in the said Proceeding dated 24.11.2025 is usefully extracted hereunder:

                  “Sri K. Ramesh Babu, was issued with proceedings dated 13.08.2025 posting him as Junior Engineer Grade-II (formerly Sub-Engineer), the eligible educational qualification for the post of Sub-Engineer is one should have a Diploma in Electrical/Mechanical/Civil Engineering. In terms of Clause 5 (b) of the B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18- 05-1997, he should be in possession of the said Diploma qualification as on 20-07-1994. As per the Diploma Certificate produced by him, he passed the examination in October/November, 1996. On which it was return the eligibility date is 17.07.1997. Therefore, he does not possess the Diploma qualification as on 18-05-1997 and he does not possess any educational qualification to hold the post of Sub-Engineer.”

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would oppose the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 24.11.2025 and submit that issuance of such Show Cause Notice is also an act of contempt on the part of the Respondents inasmuch as the Respondents have already passed an Order on 17.09.2025 indicating that the Petitioner has been absorbed as Junior Engineer with effect from 09.10.2006 and such Order, having been passed, it does not within the realm of the Respondents to issue a Show Cause Notice on 24.11.2025 reverting him to the post of Junior Lineman.

7. The above extract of the Show Cause Notice dated 24.11.2025 would indicate that B.P. (P&G per) M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 has prescribed certain conditions. One such condition is that for a person holding the post of Junior Engineer, he or she should have been in possession of a Diploma qualification as on 20.07.1994. Admittedly, the Diploma Certificate possessed by the Petitioner would clearly indicate that the eligibility date, as indicated in the said Diploma Certificate itself, is 17.07.1997.

8. This makes it abundantly clear that the conditions of the Petitioner are not fall within the teeth of B.P. (P&G per) M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. An administrative mistake in issuing the Proceeding dated 17.09.2025 would not confer any right on the Petitioner and if the correct facts are subsequently noticed by the Respondent Authorities, the Respondent Authorities are always at liberty to rectify the administrative mistake committed by them.

9. From the above facts, it appears that the initial Proceeding absorbing the Petitioner as Junior Engineer vide Proceeding dated 17.09.2025 may have been on account of a mistake and the Respondents, through the present Show Cause Notice dated 24.11.2025, intend to rectify the same.

10. Having considered these facts, this Court is of the view that the Respondents have not committed any illegality. On the other hand, the Respondents are only implementing the Award in terms of B.P. (P&G per) M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. In this view of the matter, the Order passed by this Court dated 06.11.2018 in W.P.No.23591 of 2006 and the Award of the Labour Court, Anantapur dated 14.07.2006 in I.D.No.315/2000 have been complied with by the Respondents.

11. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that despite the fact that the Award of the Labour Court had attained finality way back on 06.11.2018, noncompliance of the same, till this date, is a gross Contempt.

12. Since the absorption has been done with effect from the date of publication of the Award and the arrears also have been paid, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate whether the Respondents are guilty of Contempt inasmuch as the arrears have been paid from the date of absorption till date.

13. However, Petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation and pursue his legal remedies.

14. With these observations, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs.

15. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.