Sri Siddaramappa vs Dr Rajneesh Goel I As
2021 Latest Caselaw 2073 Kant

                         1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                       PRESENT

    THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

            C.C.C. NO.270 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI SIDDARAMAPPA
   S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA,
   AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
   OCC: ATTENDER
   COMMERCE, BHS ARTS AND TGP
   SCIENCE COLLEGE, JAMAKHANDI,
   R/A KOSTI GALLI,
   NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE,
   JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT 587301


2 . BHIMAPPA
   S/O LATE SIDDAPA HUGAR,
   AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
   OCC: ATTENDER
   COMMERCE, BHS ARTS AND TGP
   SCIENCE COLLEGE, JAMAKHANDI,
   R/A KADSIDDESHWAR COLONY,
   8TH CROSS, RAMATHIRTA ROAD,
   JAMAKHANDI,
   BAGALKOT 587301
                                    ...   COMPLAINANTS
(By Sri V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. L. ANUSHA, ADVOCATE OF BALAJI ASSOCIATES)
                             2


AND:

1 . DR. RAJNEESH GOEL, I.A.S.,
   PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
   HIGHER EDUCATION
   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   M S BUILDING, BANGALORE01

2 . SRI NANDAKUMAR B G, I.A.S.,
   COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE
   EDUCATION,
   PALACE ROAD,
   BANGALORE

3 . SRI G K PATIL
   SECRETARY BLDE ASSOCIATION,
   BIJAPUR-587301

4 . SRI B I KARALATI
   THE PRINCIPAL,
   BLDE ASSOCIATIONS COMMERCE,
   BHS ARTS AND TGP SCIENCE COLLEGE,
   JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT-587301
                                              ... ACCUSED

(BY SHRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE OF SHETTY & HEGDE
ASSOCIATES FOR A-3 & A-4)
                          ---
       THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12
OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS UNDER CONTEMPT
OF     COURTS   ACT   FOR       DELIBERATE,   WILLFUL   &
INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED
10.09.2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.53833/2013 &
9616/2014 (ANNEXURE-G) AND ALTERNATIVELY PUNISH
THE     ACCUSED   FOR   DELIBERATE,       WILLFUL    AND
INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE, IF THE ACCUSED FAILS TO
COMPY WITH THE ORDER AND ETC.
                               3




      THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The breach alleged is of the order dated 10th

September, 2021 at Annexure-G. In the operative part of

the said judgment and order, it is directed thus:

"In the circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned endorsements dated 31.8.2013 produced at Annexures-L and L1 are hereby quashed. The respondents 3 to 4 are directed to pass necessary orders in the matter of regularization of the petitioners from the date of their respective appointment and extend them all consequential benefits. Since the petitioner No.1 is retired from service, his monetary benefits are to be settled by passing appropriate order."

There is a compliance affidavit filed by the accused of one

Gurugouda Patil in which it is stated that by the order dated

8th May, 2021, the appointment of the complainants and

their services have been regularized. There are documents

produced on record to show that certain payments have

been made to the complainants.

3. The grievance of the learned senior counsel

appearing for the complainants is as regards the statement

made in Annexure-R22 to the compliance affidavit in which

the pay scale is described as 'BLDE Association Scale of

Pay.' The submission is that there is nothing like 'BLDE

Association Scale of Pay,' as the institution is an aided

institution. The learned senior counsel states that there is

non-compliance with paragraph 8 of the judgment and

order dated 10th September, 2018.

4. The only effective direction issued in the said

judgment and order was to pass necessary orders in the

matter of regularization of the petitioners from the date of

their respective appointment and extend consequential

benefits. Accordingly, orders of regularization have been

passed and benefits have been extended. If the grievance

of the complainants is that there is an illegality in the orders

passed or that consequential benefits have not been paid,

the remedy of the complainants is to file appropriate

proceedings. Suffice it to say that a substantial compliance

has been made with the order of which breach is alleged.

In any case, this is not a case to proceed further under the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

5. By keeping the remedies of the complainants open,

the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

vgh*