M P Mohan Kumar vs Girish Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2302 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                       CCC No. 394 of 2023




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                        PRESENT
                THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                             AND
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
                        CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 394 OF 2023



                BETWEEN:

                1.    M P MOHAN KUMAR
                      AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                      E C NO 32352
                      RETIRED MANAGER
                      NO B-248, 12TH MAIN
                      SAWASWATHIPURAM
                      MYSURU - 570 009.

                2.    A R VENKATESH
Digitally             AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
signed by             E C NO 32388
ROOPA R U
                      RETIRED MANAGER
Location:             NO 74, SAHANA
High Court of
Karnataka             II CROSS, II MAIN
                      SAMBRUDDHI ENCLAVE
                      KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
                      II STAGE
                      BENGALURU - 560 011.

                3.    N.R. SWARUPA
                      AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
                      W/O LATE N R RAMAKRISHNA SETTY
                      E C NO 42563
                           -2-
                                      CCC No. 394 of 2023




   RETIRED OFFICER
   1417, II CROSS
   1TH MAIN JP NAGAR
   BENGALURU - 560 078.

                                         ...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. K.R. GANESH RAO.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

   GIRISH KUMAR
   MAJOR
   AGM-HRM AND IN CHARGE
   TB AND HRCPC
   BANK OF BARODA
   HEAD OFFICE
   BARODA BHAVAN
   R C DUTTA ROAD
   ALKAPURI VADODARA - 390 007.

                                               ...ACCUSED


     THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR
NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDERS DATED 06.03.2023 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.2609/2020 BETWEEN MP
MOHAN KUMAR AND ORS AND THE HEAD (HR OPERATIONS)
BANK OF BARODA HEAD OFFICE, VADODARA, ANNEXED TO
THIS CONTEMPT PETITION AS ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW. b) DIRECT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT TO
IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED:06.03.2023 PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION No.2609/2020 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND TO PAY
THE AMOUNT OF INCREMENTAL PENSION FROM ITS DUE DATE
FROM 01.04.2001.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-
                                         CCC No. 394 of 2023




                          ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the complainants/

petitioners at length.

2. The complainants are before this Court seeking

initiation of contempt proceedings against the accused for

willful breach of the order passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.2609/2020 dated 06.03.2023, which is

placed on record at Annexure-A.

3. A perusal of the order of the learned Single

Judge would indicate that complainants/petitioners have

submitted their representations all dated 01.01.2020 to

the respondent-Bank and the same is not attended by the

respondent-Bank for a considerable length of time. Hence,

learned Single Judge directed the respondent-Bank to

consider the representations made by the petitioners in

accordance with law, within an outer limit of eight weeks

from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

CCC No. 394 of 2023

4. The complainants/petitioners submitted that

they furnished the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. PRITAM

SINGH BEDI AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 13 SCC

474 along with their representations to the respondent

i.e., The Head (H.R. Operations), Bank of Baroda, Head

Office on 28.03.2023. The documents placed on record

further show that respondent-Bank has decided the

representations of the petitioners and communication

dated 10.04.2023 to that effect was forwarded to all the

petitioners on 10.04.2023. Copy of these communications

by the authority are produced at Annexures-E, F and G

respectively at page nos. 69, 71, 73 of the contempt

petition.

5. Learned counsel for the complainants/

petitioners submits before this Court that though the

petitioners appraised the concerned authority that the

issue concerning them is covered by a judgment of the

CCC No. 394 of 2023

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE BANK OF

PATIALA VS. PRITAM SINGH BEDI AND OTHERS

reported in (2014) 13 SCC 474 and were anticipating a

positive decision with regard to their representations and

as representations of the complainants are negatively

decided by the authority, the submission of the learned

counsel is, the decision taken by the authority is contrary

to law and is itself breach of the order of the learned

Single Judge.

6. We are unable to accept the submission of the

counsel for the complainant. Whether the conclusion

drawn by the authority is proper or otherwise, is certainly

an exercise of assessing the order or the decision passed

by the authority on its own merits. Even though the

petitioners submitted certain judgments in support of their

claims, the respondent-Bank by assigning the reasons,

particularly, understanding about the Regulations and

Rules, arrived at a particular conclusion and if the

CCC No. 394 of 2023

complainants/petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they

are at liberty to challenge the said decision of the

authority before the competent forum including the judicial

forum. But assessment of the decision by the authority on

its merits cannot be gone in the present contempt petition

by expanding the scope of the contempt petition.

7. Accordingly, in our view the contempt petition is

filed on an erroneous premise and assumption of the

complainants. As such, we are unable to accept the

complaint contempt. Thus, reserving liberty to the

complainants/petitioners to challenge the decision arrived

at by the authority, the contempt petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RU