http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

PETITIONER:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TTD & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

D NAGULU NAIDU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/11/1996

BENCH:

K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

PATTANAIK.J.

Leave granted.

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 present in the

Court on 15.7.1996 for receiving appropriate sentence on a

conclusion that the contemnors have willfully not given

effect to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 14282 of

1944.

The respondent D. Nagulu Naidu was appointed as nominal

muster roll electrician in the year 1979 under The appellant

on a purely temporary basis. Pursuant to the orders issued

by the Government of Andhra 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 30.10.1990. He was regularised as helper

with effect from 19.4.1988 . He challenged the order by

filing a Writ Petition contending inter alia that the

regularisation should nave been from the date of his initial

appointment on 16.7.1979. He also contended that he should

have been reqularised as electrician. The post of

electrician was not available under Tirumala Tirupati

Devasthanams Employees services Rules, 1989 which was

brought into force on 24.10.1989 and the post of electrician

is a promotional post. From the post of helper the next

promotion is to Assistant Wireman and from there to Wireman,

and from there to Electrician. An Electrician's post is 3

steps above the Helper's post. After the rules came into

force the respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant

Wireman with effect from 18.6.1992. He filed a Writ Petition

bearing no. 14282 of 1994 claiming relier of being entitled

to the regular scale of pay attached to the post of

Electrician since 12.8.1979 and further contended that the

order of regularisation regularising him as Helper is bad in

law. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by learned

Single Judge by order dated 23.1.1995 with the direction

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

that the respondent be appointed to the post of Electrician

from the date on which his Juniors were appointed or atleast

from the date of his extracting the work of Electrician only

after the respondent acquires requisite qualification for

being appointed as Electrician. Since none of the juniors of

the respondent had been appointed or promoted as Electrician

the Executive Officer of the Devasthanham intimated the

respondent that he is not entitled to be appointed as

Electrician. The order of the Executive Officer dated

30.1.1996 was challenged by the respondent which was

registered as Writ Petition No. 3641 of 1996 and is pending

before a Learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh of High

Court. In the meantime the Chief Engineer of Devasthanam

transferred the respondent from Tirupati to Tirumala office

by order dated 17.5.1996. This order of transfer was again

challenged by the respondent in the High Court which was

registered as Writ Petition No. 10674 of 1996 and an

application for interim direction was also filed which was

registered as WPMP No. 12974 of 1996. The learned Single

Judge did not suspend the order of transfer but directed

that the transfer of the respondent will be subject to final

decision in the Writ Petition. This order of learned Single

Judge dated 7.6.1996 was assailed by filing a Writ. Appeal

which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 620 of 1996. In that

appeal the Division Bench issued a show cause notice to the

appellant as to why they should not be suitably dealt with

for having not complied with the earlier direction of the

High Court. By the impugned order dated 4.7.1996 the High

Court having held that the appellants are guilty of contempt

and having decided to exercise power under Article 215 of

the Constitution, the appellants have approached this Court.

The question for consideration under the aforesaid

circumstances is whether the High Court was at all Justified

in exercising power under Article 215 of the Constitution in

the Writ Appeal which had been filed by the respondents

against the order of the learned Single Judge dated

7.6.1996. It is apparent that the order of transfer of the

respondent from Thirupathy to Thirumala was the subject

matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 10674 of 1996 and

in that Writ Petition when application for interim

suspension of the order of transfer was filed, the learned

Single Judge did not suspend the order but held that the

order of transfer would be subject to final decision of the

Writ Petition. When against that order the respondent had

approached the Division Bench the only question which the

Division Bench was to consider is whether the learned Single

Judge was justified in not suspending the order of transfer

passed by the Devasthanam Authorities. It is indeed

surprising to notice that the Division Bench has exercised

powers under Article 215 of the Constitution on the basis

that some earlier order passed 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 learned Single

Judge to pass an interim order of suspension of the order of

transfer, the question of exercising power of contempt under

Article 215 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

narrated earlier it is difficult to conceive that the

Devasthanam Authorities have wilfully violated any

direction/order of the Court. In our considered considered

there was no occasion for the Division Bench of the High

Court to invoke the powers under Article 215 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

Constitution in the facts and circumstances as already

stated.

We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the

Division bench of the High Court dated 4.7.95, but in the

circumstances there will be no order as to costs.