Karnataka High Court
Kushi D/O. Ishwar Noolvi vs Sri Mohan M Patil on 25 July, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10587-DB
CCC No. 100018 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100018 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
KUSHI D/O. ISHWAR NOOLVI, AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE, SBI, KUNDAGOL BRANCH,
R/O. # 31, DATTATREYA COLONY, 2ND STAGE,
NEAR RAIL NAGAR, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580031.
- COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI SADYOJAT R.BALIGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MOHAN M.PATIL, OCC: REGIONAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, RBI ZONE-V, RBO,
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023,
NOW AT ANANT I.T.PARK, 1ST FLOOR,
MENAXI CHOWK, VIJAYAPURA-580020.
2. SRI MANISH BEERENDRA CHANDRA,
OCC:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
RBO, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023,
JAGADISH
TR NOW AT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE-8(A.08)
Digitally signed by
JAGADISH T R
SUPER MARKET, KALBURGI-585101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 3. SRI SANDEEP MATTOO, OCC: BRANCH MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, JEWARGI ROAD,
TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586128.
- ACCUSED
(BY SRI MOHAMMAD ALI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO INITIATE ACTION
AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER
OF THIS HON BLE COURT FOR NOT IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER
DATED 20.07.2023, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH IN
WA 100083/2023(S-RES) I.E., ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10587-DB
CCC No. 100018 of 2024
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
This contempt petition is filed under Sections 11 and 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 complaining non-compliance of
order dated 20.07.2023 passed in WA No.100083/2022.
2. The above WA No.100083/2022 was filed by the
respondent/Bank questioning the correctness and legality of
order dated 18.11.2021 passed in WP No.111887/2019,
wherein learned Single Judge passed following order:
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned communication dated
31.08.2018 issued by the respondent bank at
Annexure-L is hereby quashed.
iii) The respondent bank is directed to reinstate
the petitioner into service with effect from
31.08.2018 with all consequential monetary
benefits within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10587-DB
iv) However, liberty is reserved with the
respondent bank to initiate appropriate
action against the petitioner in accordance
with law.
3. In the above stated writ appeal, backwages was
restricted to 50% with other consequential benefits to the
petitioner w.e.f. 31.08.2018. Against the judgment passed in
WA No.100083/20222, the petitioner Smt.Kushi approached
the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.15841/2024.
The Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 26.06.2024 dismissed
the SLP. Thereafter, the present contempt petition is presented
complaining non-compliance of judgment passed in WA
No.100083/2022. The order of learned Single Judge has
merged with the judgment passed in WA No.100083/2022,
dated 20.07.2023.
4. In terms of learned Single Judge's order as well as
judgment passed in WA No.100083/2022, the complainant
would be entitled for backwages at 50% with all consequential
benefits.
5. The complainant in her complaint has not specified
as to what are the consequential benefits which the
complainant would be entitled to. The complaint is filed for non
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10587-DB
implementation of the order dated 20.07.2023 in W.A. No.
100083/2023. In W.A. No. 100083/2023 this Court modified
learned Single Judge's order and restricted the back wages to
50%.
6. On issuance of notice, the respondent bank
appeared and filed its statement of objections on 18.03.2024;
memo dated 22.07.2024 enclosing letter dated 18.07.2024
along with account statement dated 18.07.2024 for crediting a
sum of Rs.6,89,887/- to the bank account of the complainant.
Thereafter one more affidavit dated 24.07.2024 is filed to show
that further sum of Rs.83,787/- is credited towards arrears of
increments for the period from 31.08.2018 to 28.02.2022.
7. Today one more affidavit is filed by accused no.1 to
state that the complainant has been paid revised basic, annual
increment, D.A, perks as consequential benefits, enclosing
statement showing the arrears of gross salary and other
allowances paid for the period from August, 2018 to February
2022, out of which 50% would be Rs.7,45,502/-, which amount
has been credited to the account of the complainant. Further,
affidavit would also state that promotion to Senior Associate
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10587-DB
will be considered when the complainant completes eight years'
of service.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit
that the complainant has submitted representation in terms of
liberty reserved by the Hon'ble Apex Court requesting for
payment of salary on revision of pay which has taken place
during November, 2022.
9. On going through the entire contempt papers along
with affidavit filed by the accused no.1 we are satisfied that
50% of the back wages for the period from August, 2018 till
the complainant is reinstated in February, 2022 is paid in a sum
of Rs.7,45,502/-. The chart enclosed to the affidavit dated
25.07.2024 indicates that the total gross salary of the
complainant included basic, D.A., H.R.A., special allowance,
transport allowance and special pay. The complainant is also
paid perks towards newspaper, conveyance and entertainment
amounting to Rs.28,151/-, i.e., 50% of Rs.56,302/-. Totally
the complainant is paid a sum of Rs.7,73,653/-.
10. Apart from the above benefits, if the complainant is
entitled to any other benefit and if there is any error in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10587-DB
payment of back wages and consequential benefits, it is open
for the complainant to make representation to the respondent
bank and if the complainant makes such representation the
respondent bank is directed to consider the same in accordance
with law.
11. From the above, we are of the considered view that
the order under complaint is substantially complied and there is
no deliberate or intentional disobedience of order. Hence, we
drop further proceedings.
Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR/BVV
