Andhra Pradesh High Court

Dr. T.GIory Daya Kumari v. Dr Narayana Bharath Gupta, IAS

CC/1840/2026

Decision date
2026-07-09
Text availability
Full text
Judges
Challa Gunaranjan

Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗

Connected provisions and cases

No further provision or case links are recorded.

Judgment text

APHC010246612026 Bench Sr.No:-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506] AT AMARAVATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1840 of 2026 Dr. T. Giory Daya Kumari, ...Petitioner Vs. Dr Narayana Bharath Gupta, IAS ...Contemnor ********** Advocate for Petitioner: M R TAGORE Advocate for Contemnor: RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 10th July 2026 ORDER: Present contempt has been filed alleging violation of interim order dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P. No.12061 of 2025, by which there has been direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the proposal stated to have been submitted by 3rd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.194/A2/2023, dated 13.03.2023, recommending sanction of encashment of Earned Leave and Half Pay Leave in favour of petitioner within a period of four weeks. 2. The respondent is present in person in pursuance to directions of this Court dated 19.06.2026. Mr.Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel appearing for respondents has placed on record Memo dated 18.09.2025, letter L.Dis.No.718/A2/2025, dated 26.11.2025 and would submit that already decision has 2 CGR, J C.C. No.1840 of 2026

been taken to process the payment in favour of petitioner by aforesaid communications and now the matter is with Finance Department for clearance of the payments. He also submits that as the direction is to consider the proposal of 3rd respondent, and the subsequent developments indicated the same has been considered positively, the order therefore stands complied with. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, states that until and unless payments are released, the order would not stand complied with in entirety. 4. This Court has merely directed for consideration of proposal, and there is now positive consideration which has to ratify for payment. Petitioner is at liberty to agitate the same by filing appropriate application in the pending writ petition, in case the payment is not received in time. 5. With the above observations, this contempt case stands closed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss