Karnataka High Court
Sri Shankaraiah K vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2022
Bench: B.Veerappa, K S Hemalekha
-1-
CCC No. 927 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 927 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHANKARAIAH K.,
S/O KRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
LAKSHMISAGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
2. SRI SWAMYGOWDA,
S/O MANCHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
HONAGANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
Digitally signed by
USHA NAGENAHALLI
SHANMUKHAPPA 3. SRI KULLA,
Location: High Court S/O MATTIGOWDA,
of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
4. SRI RAMAKRISHNA,
S/O SHIVANNA,
-2-
CCC No. 927 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
NARAYANAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
5. SRI LOKESH L. K.,
S/O KARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
LAKSHMISAGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
6. SRI G. RAMESH,
S/O GOVINDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
HONAGANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
7. SRI RAJEGOWDA,
S/O CHIKKATHAMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
KANAGANAMARADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
8. SRI SHANKAR,
S/O PAPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
K. BETTAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
9. NAGEGOWDA,
S/O ANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
-3-
CCC No. 927 of 2021
BANNANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434,
10. SRI CHANDRAPPA,
S/O SANNINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE,
BANNANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI N. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.
2. DR. SANJAY S. BIJJUR,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SRI. ATHEEQ L.K.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. SRI. SANJAY MOHAN,
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560003.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR PROFORMA R1 & A2 TO A4)
****
-4-
CCC No. 927 of 2021
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 BY THE COMPLAINANT
PRAYING TO INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE
ORDER DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.
41871/2017 AND PUNISH THEM ACCORDINGLY.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This contempt petition is filed by the complainants to take
action against the accused persons under the provisions of
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for
willful disobedience of the order dated 25.2.2020 passed in Writ
Petition No.41871/2017 by the learned Single Judge of this
Court wherein while disposing of the writ petition, the
endorsement issued by the accused was set aside and they
were directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the
directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.36133-
36152/2015 and take appropriate decision in an expedite
manner after providing an opportunity of hearing to the
complainants to substantiate their claim. Further liberty was
reserved to the complainants to produce the documents, if any,
in support of their claim.
CCC No. 927 of 2021
2. The earlier directions issued by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition Nos.36133-36152/2015 on 24th
November, 2015 where a direction was issued to respondent
Nos.1 to 3 therein to consider the cases of the petitioners
therein for giving necessary relief under the Karnataka Daily
Wages Employees Welfare Rules, 2012. While taking the
decision, they also directed to take into account the
precedents in respect of similar daily-wagers and more
particularly the list of daily-wagers, who were given the relief
under the said Rules as per the proceedings, Annexure-P to the
writ petitions. However, it was made clear that no opinion
whatsoever was expressed on the merits of the claims of the
petitioners. It was for respondents-1 to 3 therein to take a
decision in accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible and in any case within six months from the date of
issuance of the certified copy of the said order. Admittedly,
when the present impugned order is passed on 25.2.2020, the
respondents ought to have re-considered the claim of the
complainants and passed orders in accordance with law. But
the same having been not done, the complainants were forced
to file the present contempt petition on 23.11.2021.
CCC No. 927 of 2021
3. When the matter was posted before the Court on
10.2.2022, the accused were served and unrepresented. As
such, the learned High Court Government Pleader undertook to
file power for the accused and sought two weeks time for
compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court. It was further submitted that he had convinced Sri
Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior Counsel for the
complainants, not to object for the adjournment. Accordingly,
it was adjourned by two weeks.
4. Now the learned HCGP has filed an affidavit dated
23.6.2022 of Sri L.K. Atheeq, Principal Secretary to
Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, M.S. Buildings, Bengaluru, wherein paragraph-6
the relevant portion reads as under:
"6. It is also submitted that after considering
all these facts mentioned above including the
following provisions of the Karnataka Daily wage
Employees Welfare Act:-
"a) Section 3 of the said Act-
Continuation of Daily Wage Employees -
subject to the provisions of this Act, the
Daily Wage Employees in the
CCC No. 927 of 2021
establishments whose name are notified
by the Government under this Act, shall
be continued on Daily Wage basis till they
complete the age of 60 years. Provided
that, no daily wage employee shall be
continued unless he possessed the
qualification prescribed for the post on
the date of his initial engagement on
daily wage basis.
b) Section 4 of the said Act specifies
that the pay of a daily wage employee
shall be the minimum of the time scale of
pay of the post in which he is continued
in service.
c) The Chief Secretary to Government
of Karnataka in Circular dated:
10.05.2013 has specifically stated that
the names of employees of work charge
establishment, part time staff, staff
working on contract basis, staff working
on outsource basis and temporary staff
shall not be included in the notification
issued under the said Act. Copy of the
said Circular in enclosed herewith as
Annexure-R2."
CCC No. 927 of 2021
From the above it is clear that the petitioners
have not been engaged in a post having any
requisite educational qualification and also time
scale of pay and the petitioners engagement
itself were temporary i.e., as long as the
scheme continued. Hence, the petitioners have
been given an endorsement by the 2nd
Respondent dated 16.02.2016 as at Annexure-
G which has been set aside by this Hon'ble
Court vide its order dated 25.02.2020 in W.P.
No.41871/2017."
5. The fact remains that relying upon the earlier
judgment, the learned Single Judge passed an order on
25.2.2020 directing the accused to re-consider the matter in
the light of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition
Nos.36133-36152/2015 within six months i.e., 25.8.2020.
Since the authorities had not re-considered the claim of the
complainants, thereby the complainants were unnecessarily
dragged to file the present contempt petition on 23.11.2021 by
engaging the learned Senior Counsel and causing financial loss
and mental disturbance because of the adamant attitude of the
Officers concerned. Now the present compliance affidavit is
filed that too after the passing an order dated 10.2.2022 by
CCC No. 927 of 2021
this Court with a delay of more than six months. Thereby, the
accused are liable to pay litigation expenses to the
complainants as costs by the accused.
6. In view of the above we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The contempt proceedings are dropped,
subject to payment of costs of `20,000/- to each of
the complainants by the accused persons towards
litigation expenses within a period of three weeks for
the delay in complying with the Order passed by the
learned Single Judge;
(ii) It is needless to observe that if the
complainants are aggrieved by the endorsement
dated 22.02.2022, Annexures-R3, it is open for them
to challenge the same, if so advised, in accordance
with law; and
(iii) If the accused persons fail to pay the costs as
stated above within two weeks, post this matter
- 10 -
CCC No. 927 of 2021
before Court for taking action under the Contempt of
Courts Act.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
Nsu/-
