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.