LexEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TTD AND ANR. versus D. NAGULU NAIDU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TTD AND ANR. v. D. NAGULU NAIDU NOVEMBER 7, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Constitution of India. 19 50: Article 2 I 5. Order/direction of High Court-Wilful violation of-Contempt C proceedings-Employer ordered transfer of employee-Employee challenged transfer order in writ petition before High Court-Single Judge of High Court did not suspend transfer order-But directed that transfer order would be subject to final decision in writ petition-Employee filed writ appeal against order of Single Judge-Division Bench in exercise of power under Art.215 issued show-cause notice to employer as to why he should not be D suitably dealt with for not having complied with earlier direction of High Court in some other proceedings-Held: Division Bench wrongly exercised powers under Art. 215. The appellant ordered transfer of the respondent-employee. The respo1.dent-employee filed a writ petition before the High Court E challenging the transfer order. The Single Judge of the High Court did not suspend the transfer order but directed that the order of transfer would be subject to final decision on the writ petition. The respondent-employee filed a Writ Appeal against the order of the Single Judge. In that appeal the Division Bench in exercise of power under Article 215 of the Constitution issued a show-cause notice to F the appellant as to why he should not be suitably dealt with for having not• complied with the earlier direction of the High Court made in some other proceedings. Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: When against the order of the Single Judge of the High Court the respondent had approached the Division Bench the only question which the Division Bench was to consider is whether the Single Judge was justified in not suspending the order of transfer H passed by the appellant. The Division Bench had wrongly exercised 560 - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TTD. v. D. NAGULU NAIDU [PATTANAIK, !.] 561 powers under Article 215 of the Constitution on the basis that some A earlier order pas!ed in some other proceeding had not been complied with, Article 215 of the Constitution, no doubt, confers ample power on the High Court to commit for contempt but when the appeal before it was in relation to legality or otherwise of the refusal of the Single Judge to pass an interim order of suspension of the transfer order, the question of exercising power of contempt under Article 215 B of the Constitution for the alleged non-compliance of any earlier direction of the Court does not arise and was not called for. Even otherwise on the facts of this case it is difficult to conceive that the Appellant had wilfully violated any direction/order of the Court. (563 B-E[ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14221 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.96 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W .A. No. 620 of 1996. K. Ram Kumar for the Appellants. ' Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted. c D E This Appeal by special Leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 4.7.96 passed in Writ Appeal No. 620 of 1996. By the impugned order the High Court has exercised powers under Article 215 of the Constitution and directed the contemnor to be F present in the Court on 15.7.1996 for receiving appropriate sentence on a conclusion that the contemnors have wilfully not given effect to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 14282 of 1994. The respondent D. Nagulu Naidu was appointed as nominal muster G roll electrician in the year 1979 under the appellant on a purely temporary basis. Pursuant to the orders issued by the Government ·of Aiidhra Pradesh dated 19.4.1988 for regularisation of persons working on nominal muster rolls from 1.1.70 to 31.3.1984, the services of the respondent was regularised by proceedings of the Executive Officer Devasthanam dated 30. l 0.1990. He was regularised as helper with effect from 19.4.1988. He H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A challenged the order by filing a Writ Petition contending inter alia that the regularisation should have been from the date of his initial appointment on 16.7.1979. He also contended that he should have been regularised as electrician. The post of electrician was not available under Tirumala Tirupati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.