Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
D. Subramanyam vs A.V.G. Krishna Murthy, Secretary, A.P. ... on 22 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)ALT623
ORDER
1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents have failed to implement the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 6562/79 dated 27-6-1980 and therefore, the respondents namely A.V.G. Krishna Murthy, Secretary A.P. Legislature, Hyderabad and C. Venkatesan, Special Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislature, Hyderabad are liable for contempt of Court.
2. It is necessary to refer to the facts in brief: The petitioner along with 10 others filed a writ petition No. 6562 /79 challenging G.O.Ms. No. 82/79 dated 4th September, 1979 of the Legislature Department on the ground, amongst others, that there is non-compliance of Article 187 of the Constitution of India. Article 187 empowers to frame rules and regulations regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Secretarial staff of the Assembly or the Council and any rules framed will be subject to the provisions of any law made under the said clause No rules were framed under Article 187. Under Article 187 (3) G.O.Ms. No. 608 was issued for the composite State of Madras, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the Secretarial staff. After the formation of State of Andhra Pradesh, G.O.Ms. No. 1315 GAD dated 28-8-1958 was issued regulating the recruitment and service conditions of Legislative Assembly Secretariat. Thereafter, Rules were framed in G.O.Ms. No. 82 of 1979 dated 4-9-1979 which were framed under Article 187 (3) of the Constitution of India. The said Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 187 of the Constitution of India. On a consideration of the respective contentions raised by the petitioners as well as the respondents, this Court held that the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 82/79 is violative of Article 187 of the Constitution of India and liable to be quashed and accordingly it was quashed. While quashing the G.O. leave was granted to go in appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 (1) and Article 132 of the Constitution of India. When the appeal Civil Appeal No. 2686 of 1980 came up before the Supreme Court on 15th February, 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that due to lapse of 15 years, no useful purpose will be served by going into the merits of the controversy.
3. Since the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal on 15-2-1995, the present Contempt Petition was filed on 22-9-1995 alleging that the judgment of the High Court in W.P. No. 6562/79 has become final and the impugned G.O. was quashed on the ground that there is non-compliance of Article 187 of the Constitution of India and inspite of that the petitioners case was not considered for purpose of promotion in accordance with the old Rules, namely, in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 1315 GAD dated 28-8-1958 and the subsequent G.Os. issued up to the G.O.Ms. No. 82/79 dated 4-9-1979 either amending or modifying the G.O.Ms. No. 1315. On the other hand, the respondents have issued Ad hoc Rules and promoting the persons in accordance with the Ad hoc Rules and, thus they violated the judgment of the High Court in W.P. No. 6562/79.
4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that, though this Court allowed the writ petition 6562/79 holding that the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 82 / 79 was in violation of Article 187 of the Constitution of India, there was no positive direction, directing the respondents to promote the petitioners in accordance with the G.Os. which were in existence prior to the issuance of the G.O.Ms. No. 82/1979. It is true that there was no stay granted staying operation of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 6562/79. However, pursuant to the judgment in W.P. No. 6562/79, the respondents have framed Rules complying with the observations made by this Court in the said writ petition and issued G.O.Ms. No. 66/83 regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the several classes and categories of employees working in the Legislature Secretariat and the said G.O. was challenged by way of writ Petition. The said writ petition No. 7537/86 was dismissed upholding the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 66/83. Since the Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 66/83 were upheld promotions were made in accordance with the said G.O. and the respondents have not promoted the persons in accordance with the G.O.Ms. No. 82/79 which was the subject matter of the writ petition No. 6562/79. Therefore, the allegation that the respondents have violated the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 6562/79 is without any substance. It is also stated that in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 66/83 petitioners in W.P. No. 6562 / 79 were promoted as Assistant Secretaries. Since the petitioner's turn has not come for promotion to the post of Asst. Secretary which is a merit -cum-seniority post he could not be promoted. Therefore, it is stated that there is no violation of any of the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 6562/79.
6. From the judgment in W.P. No. 6562/79, it is clear that the only finding given by this Court is that there is violation of Article 187 of the Constitution of India by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 82/79. No further directions were issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the existing rules as on the date of judgment. Pursuant to the leave granted by this Court under Article 133 (1) (1) and Article 132 the respondents have filed Civil appeals in the Supreme Court and no stay was granted. Therefore the respondents have framed ad hoc rules complying with the directions issued by this Court as they have not obtained stay of the operation of the judgment in the Supreme Court. All the said rules were also upheld by this Court in a subsequent writ petition. In other words the respondents have complied with the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 6562/79. In the absence of the directions issued by this Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the existing rules issued prior to G.O.Ms. No. 82/79 the question of promoting the petitioner in accordance with those rules does not arise. Therefore, there is no violation of the judgment of this Court. Further, the respondents have complied with the judgment of this Court and framed rules complying with the requirements under Article 187 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the argument of the petitioner that the respondents have violated the judgment in W.P. No. 6562/79. Therefore, there are no merits in this Contempt case and it is accordingly dismissed.