A.P. High Court to hear batch of contempt cases on senior IAS officers on November 13
In the contempt petitions filed by various government employee associations, and individual employees and officials, it was alleged that there was deliberate disobedience and disregard of common judgments and orders delivered by the High Court
The core disputes in the petitions revolve around intricate service matters.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court will take up further proceedings on Friday, November 13, in a batch of high-profile contempt cases involving multiple serving and retired senior IAS officers and top government bureaucrats over the alleged willful non-implementation of long-standing court orders.
The matter was advanced to November 13 for further proceedings during the hearing on October 30, 2026, by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar.
The contempt petitions, spanning Contempt Case Nos. 4593 of 2022, 189, 750, 861, 908 of 2019, and 68 of 2020, have been filed by various government employee associations, retired officials, and individual petitioners (including Secretariat staff, R&B engineers, TTD employees, and police housing corporation officials).
The petitioners allege deliberate disobedience and disregard of common judgments and orders delivered by the High Court dating back to December 2018 (such as W.P. No. 43051 of 2016 and W.P. No. 4415 of 2016) and subsequent writ appeals. The core disputes revolve around intricate service matters, including: creation and placement of supernumerary posts; application of interstate seniority rules; implementation of service benefits for State government and Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) personnel.
During earlier hearings, the Advocate General representing the respondent authorities submitted that steps were actively under way to comply with the court’s directives. However, the State pointed to administrative difficulties in quantifying vacancies, creating supernumerary posts, and resolving complexities around interstate seniority, prompting requests for additional time.
Despite assurances and previous adjournments, counsel for the petitioners argued that the core judicial mandates remained unfulfilled, keeping the contempt proceedings active.
In its October 30 order, the High Court noted that physical appearance directives and Form-I notices were earlier issued to the respondents under coordinate bench orders. The Court granted two weeks’ time for newly impleaded respondents to file their respective counter affidavits. Respondents who already filed counter affidavits were required to physically appear before the Court on the next date of hearing.
- high
- court
- contempt
- batch
- ias
- november
- employee
- case
