Karnataka High Court
Ravindra vs Sri Srikar M S And Ors on 14 August, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200228 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
RAVINDRA S/O MAHANTHAPPA KANAKI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O: MAHALINGA NIVAS,
NEAR SHASHTRI CHOWK, SHAHABAD,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH 1. SRI SRIKAR M.S., I.A.S
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(PRIMARY & HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT.),
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DR. AKASH SHANKAR IAS
THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, AIWAN-E-SHAHI AREA,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...ACCUSED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(PRIMARY & HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT.),
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI MALHAR RAO, AAG A/W
SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R3;
R1 & R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,
PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS
DEEMED FIT INCLUDING PUNISHING THEM IN SO FAR AS
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED IN WP
NO.201810/2022 DATED 18.07.2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-
A AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT
INCLUDING PUNISHING THEM WITH IMPRISONMENT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.07.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
We have heard Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri Nitesh Padiyal for the complainant
and Sri Malhar Rao, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for respondent No.3 on the issue of hearing before
charge against respondent No.2.
2. This contempt petition is filed under Article 215 of
the Constitution of India r/w Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act. The prayer sought in the petition
reads as follows:
"i. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to initiate
contempt proceedings against the
respondent/accused and order for taking
action as deemed fit including punishing
them in so far as disobedience of the order
passed in WP.No.201810/2022 dated
18.07.2024 which is at Annexure-A and
order for taking action as deemed fit
including punishing them with imprisonment
in the interest of justice.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
ii. Issue any other direction as deemed fit by
the Hon'ble Court."
3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the
complainant in the present contempt petition stated that he
was appointed by the Recruitment Committee constituted in
the year 1993, as Watchman against permanent vacancy and
he was being paid only Rs.250/- and was being branded as
temporary employee, but his services has not been
regularized nor paid wages corresponding to permanent
employee as that of similarly situated government
employees and covered his name under Government grant.
It is stated that he approached respondent No.1 by filing
petition, but the same was not considered. Hence, the
complainant approached this Court by way of writ petition in
W.P.No.201961/2017.
4. The learned Single Judge by order dated
30.05.2018 allowed the writ petition filed by the complainant
with a direction to dispose of the said petition pending before
the authority. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has disposed of
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
the said petition filed under Section 131 of the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act') on 15.10.2018,
denying the prayer sought by the complainant. The Principal
of the college where the complainant was working continued
to extract the work from him continuously, without any kind
of break and without paying the corresponding government
scale or without sending the proposal to respondent No.1 for
covering him under Government grant. Hence, again the
complainant approached this Court in W.P.No.201810/2022
with a prayer to direct the respondents for regularization of
his service from the date of his initial appointment in the
year 1993 and cover him under government grant and pay
all consequential benefits including the arrears of wages as
per order dated 15.10.2018 passed by respondent No.1.
5. It is stated that after hearing both sides, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the
complainant vide Annexure-A, directed respondent No.2 to
consider the letter of respondent No.2 dated 12.06.2020 and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within a
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of said
order.
6. It is also the contention of the complainant that
he made several representations dated 26.08.2024,
29.07.2014 and 12.08.2014 requesting respondent Nos.2
and 3 to comply the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and pay all the arrears of salary, pension etc., with all
consequential benefits. The representations given by the
complainant are produced as Annexures-B, C and D. But,
inspite of submitting representations, the respondents have
not considered the same and hence, approached this Court
by filing this contempt petition.
7. The main contention of the learned Senior
counsel appearing for the complainant is that inspite of
specific order passed in earlier writ petition as well as in the
order produced at Annexure-A, the respondents failed to
comply the direction even though specific time of four weeks
was given to consider the representations and pass
appropriate orders. Hence, counsel would vehemently
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
contend that when the respondents have not complied the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court has to
frame the charges against the respondents.
8. He has further submitted that, in response to this
contempt petition, an affidavit dated 07.01.2025 is filed by
respondent No.4 annexing Annexures-R1 and R2 and stating
that in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, a letter was written to respondent No.2 on
07.08.2024 as per Annexure-R1. Respondent No.2 passed
the order on 24.12.2024 and the same was communicated to
respondent no.4 vide its letter dated 01.01.2025 and same is
produced as Annexure-R2. The same was not accepted by
this Court.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the
complainant also filed a memo and enclosed the order
passed under Section 131 of the Act by issuing directions to
send the proposal to admit the post in which the complainant
was working to grant-in-aid. However, nothing placed before
the Court by the concerned officer of the Education
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
Department as to the status of implementation of the order
passed under Section 131 of the Education Act. This Court,
vide order dated 20.02.2025 taking into consideration of the
order dated 18.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.201810/2022,
found that a detailed order was passed by the learned Single
Judge with a direction to the Additional Commissioner for
Public Instructions to consider the letter dated 12.06.2020
and to pass appropriate orders. This Court took note of the
letter dated 12.06.2020 which is a communication addressed
by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Kalaburagi to
the Additional Commissioner for Public Instruction and found
that the said document is self-explanatory and extracted the
letter dated 12.06.2020. Having read the same, this Court
made an observation that the same would reveal that the
proposal has been made to include the name of the
complainant in the list of Government grant and necessary
permission of the Government in that regard has been
sought. This Court also took note of the earlier order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.201961/2017. At paragraph-7, an
observation was made that it must be noticed that entirety
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
of the case of the complainant was that he has been making
several representations, however, Private Educational
Institution had not taken any action to send his name
despite his entitlement. It is further case that once the Court
had passed an order, the consideration of including his name
in the list ought to date back to his legal entitlement at an
earlier point of time and cannot now be defeated on the sole
ground that as on the date there is a bar for such
consideration of admitting the post to grant-in-aid. Hence,
passed an order that the defense now set-up cannot have
the effect of defeating the right of the complainant whose
name was not forwarded for no fault of his. It is also
observed that the stand of respondent/accused in multiple
affidavits cannot be accepted and ordered to list the matter
for framing of charges on 28.02.2025 since not accepted the
further affidavit dated 20.02.2025 wherein Annexure-R1 to
R8 were filed before the Court. Having passed such an order
on 20.02.2025, respondents again filed compliance report on
27.02.2025 along with Annexures-R1 to R8. Annexure-R1 is
the order passed in earlier writ petition i.e.,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
W.P.No.201961/2017. When the matter was listed on
28.02.2025, a submission was made that order would be
complied with. Though such a submission was made,
respondents requested the Court to observe that compliance
would not foreclose the legal contentions that could be raised
in other matters and compliance may not be treated as
precedent in other matters. Said submission of the learned
Additional Advocate General was taken on record. The Court
clarified that the compliance in the present case may not be
treated as precedent in other cases and directed to report
necessary compliance by 25.04.2025. Further affidavit is
filed on 24.04.2025, wherein it is stated that respondent
No.2 has written letter to the Principal Secretary to
Government, Department of School Education, for approving
by giving the benefits to the complainant. A copy of the
letter dated 05.03.2025 is produced as Annxure-R1 and
detail proposal was sent to the Government.
10. Immediately after filing of the said affidavit,
matter was ordered to be listed on 05.06.2025 and it was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
made clear that if the respondents fail to comply the order,
all the respondents shall be present before this Court for
framing of charges.
11. The respondents again filed further affidavit on
04.06.2025 wherein it is stated that, under the special
circumstances, case of the complainant has been considered
by the Government and order is passed on 03.06.2025,
admitting the complainant's service to grant-in-aid. The
order of the Government dated 03.06.2025 is also produced
as Annexure-R1 along with the said affidavit. The
complainant filed an affidavit in pursuance of the affidavit
dated 04.06.2025 wherein reiterated the earlier orders and
also the letter addressed to the Additional Commissioner
dated 12.06.2020 and earlier orders passed in two writ
petitions. At paragraph-10 of the said affidavit, the
complainant referred to the orders dated 17.02.2025 and
20.02.2025 and contended that irrelevant documents are
produced along with the affidavits and this Court held that
the stand of respondents/accused in multiple affidavits
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
cannot be accepted and ordered to list this matter for
framing of charges on 28.02.2025. It was stated that the
order passed by the Government is not in consonance with
the claim made by the complainant. In paragraph No.12, the
complainant stated that the Court ordered to list the matter
on 05.06.2025 with a direction to the respondents to be
present before this Court for framing of charges, if the
respondents failed to comply the order. It is stated that by
taking undue advantage of the words "if the respondents
failed to comply the order" all the respondents shall be
present before the Court for framing of charges and by way
of empty formality, without there being compliance of the
order, one more affidavit was filed and not met the case of
the complainant. The observation made in the order of this
Court dated 28.02.2025 was made on the request of the
Government that it will not be treated as precedent in other
cases. But, the grievance of the complainant is that inspite of
giving of several representations, though he is entitled for
being covered under the Government grant with effect from
his initial appointment in the year 1993, the order dated
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
03.06.2025 was not in compliance with the direction given
by the learned Single Judge. In view of Government Order
dated 03.06.2025, on 05.06.2025, this Court allowed the
exemption application and when the matter was listed on
17.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 there was no further progress in
the matter. However, on 23.06.2025, this Court directed
respondent No.2 to be present before this Court on the next
date of hearing. This Court by order dated 03.07.2025,
considering the submission of the learned Additional
Advocate General regarding the Government Order dated
03.06.2025 and subsequent developments, held that it is
appropriate to give both parties a hearing before charge and
hence, posted the matter on 16.07.2025 for hearing before
charge wherein specifically directed respondent No.2 to be
present before the Court by the next date of haring. On
16.07.2025, Additional Commissioner for Public Instruction
was present before the Court and matter could not be taken
due to paucity of time.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
12. When the matter was heard regarding hearing
before charge, the main contention of the learned Senior
counsel appearing for the complainant is that the order dated
03.06.2025 is not inconformity with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in the earlier two writ petitions and
counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the same is
also not as per the order of the Principal Secretary dated
15.10.2018 and hence, this Court has to frame charges
against the respondents/accused.
13. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State vehemently contended that when the
directions issued by this Court in earlier two writ petitions
are complied, the question of framing of charge against the
respondents does not arise and the contempt proceedings
may be dropped.
14. In response to this argument, the learned Senior
counsel appearing for the complainant has brought to the
notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Central Co-operative Consumers' Store
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
Ltd., vs. Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and
others reported in AIR 1994 SC 23 wherein at paragraph-5
it observed with regard to the conduct of the respondent. He
also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of The Barium Chemicals Ltd.,
and others vs. A.J.Rana and others reported in AIR
1972 SC 591 wherein at paragraph-15 discussion is made
with regard to the word 'consider' which means 'to view
attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look
attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, mediate
on, give heed to, take, note of, to think deliberately, be think
oneself, to reflect. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-16
has observed that an application of mind with regard to
necessity to obtain and examine only a few of the many
documents mentioned in the order, while there has been no
such application of mind in respect of the remaining
documents would not be sufficient compliance with the
requirements of the statue.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
15. The learned Senior counsel also relied upon the
decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
S.Kiranmayi vs. N.Sambasiva Rao and others reported
in 2017(4) ALD 287 wherein at paragraph-20 referred to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Barium Chemicals Ltd., wherein has observed with regard
to the word 'consider'. He also brought to the notice of this
Court paragraph-22 of the judgment supra wherein the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Comptroller and Auditor-General of India vs.
K.S.Jagannathan reported in (1986)2 SCC 679 referred
and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph-26 wherein
an observation was made that if the petitioners were driven
to another round of litigation as contended by learned
counsel for the respondents, it is a mockery of justice and
the Court has to have holistic view of the matter and should
not multiply the litigation.
16. The learned Senior counsel also relied upon the
order passed in the contempt petition by the High Court of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
Judicature at Madras in the case of Mrs. R.Lalithambai and
another vs. Thiru.Anshul Mishra in
Cont.P.No.2790/2024 decided on 28.04.2025 and
brought the notice of this Court to the discussion made in
paragraph Nos.9 and 10. He also relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankar Dass vs.
Union of India (UOI) and others reported in AIR 1985
SC 772. The learned Senior counsel referring to these
judgments would contend that the order of the Government
is not in consonance with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and the same is not in compliance with the
letter and spirit of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
17. Learned Senior counsel has also relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.205398/2019 dated 24.02.2020. The learned Senior
counsel referring to these judgments would vehemently
contend that the order ought to have been admitting the
complainant for grant-in-aid from the date of his
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
employment retrospectively and not prospectively as has
been done by the Government. Hence, the matter requires to
be considered and this Court has to frame the charges
against the respondents/accused.
18. In reply to this argument, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State would
submit that, as could be seen from the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge at paragraph-2 wherein
it is categorically mentioned that it was the contention of
the complainant that he was appointed to the post of Group-
C in the year 1993 in the school of respondent No.5 therein
and he had moved an application to respondent No.1 for
regularization of his services and also covering his post as
permanent employee under the grant-in-aid. Respondent
no.1 did not consider the application and hence, writ petition
was filed in W.P.No.201961/2017. The learned Single Judge
by order dated 30.05.2018 allowed the petition and directed
respondent No.1 to dispose of the petition said to be filed by
the complainant/petitioner under Section 131 of the Act,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
copy of the said order. He also brought to the notice of this
Court paragraph-7 of the impugned order wherein an
observation is made that petitioner/complainant is not
serving in the government school and his post was not
approved under grant-in-aid prior to his appointment to the
said post. Under the circumstances, the Government cannot
be directed to regularize the services retrospectively. He has
been serving in a private educational institution and
moreover, no documents are placed on record in support of
his contention, neither he has produced the appointment
letter issued by respondent No.4 nor there are any records
to show that he has been serving in the said institution since
1993. He also brought to the notice of this Court that the
learned Single Judge has categorically held that there is no
need to consider the submission of the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner, in respect of the regularization of
the service of the petitioner by the Government. However,
at paragraph-10, the learned Single Judge has observed that
it is necessary to direct respondents No.2 to consider the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
said representation of respondent no.3 and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge
moulded the relief and directed respondent No.2 to consider
the letter of respondent No.2 dated 12.06.2020 and pass
appropriate orders. Now, the Government as a special case
considered the complainant's grievance in view of the
directions issued by the learned Single Judge in earlier writ
petition and also in the subsequent writ petition and passed
an order. Hence, the question of framing of charges does not
arise.
19. Having considered the factual aspects as well as
the material placed on record, affidavits filed by the
respective respondents periodically and the affidavit filed by
the complainant subsequent to the passing of Government
Order dated 03.06.2025 and also the principles laid down in
the decisions referred supra, the points that would arise for
our consideration are:
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
i) "Whether the complainant has made out a
ground to frame charges against the
respondents/accused ?
ii) What order?"
20. Having perused the material on record, it is not in
dispute that the complainant had earlier approached this
Court in W.P.No.201961/2017 and the learned Single Judge
passed an order which reads as follows :-
"Consequently, petition is allowed. Respondent
No.1 is directed to dispose off the petition said to be
filed by the petitioner under Section 131 of Karnataka
Education Act within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order."
21. From the above order, it is unequivocally clear
that the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition
directed respondent no.1 to dispose of the petition said to
be filed by the complainant/petitioner under Section 131 of
Karnataka Education Act, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Hence, it is
clear that the petition filed by the complainant under Section
131 of Karnataka Education Act has to be considered within a
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
period of two months. It is to be noted that, an order has
been passed consequent upon this order stating that there is
a ban and question of admitting and granting the relief as
sought by the complainant cannot be granted. In the first
affidavit, Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Kalaburagi
(DDPI) stated that he has written a letter to respondent No.2
on 07.08.2024 and respondent no.2 passed an order on
24.12.2024 as per Annexure-R2 wherein it is stated that the
letter dated 12.06.2020 was perused and in terms of the
Karnataka Education Act, there is no possibility to admit the
post of the complainant to grant-in-aid and an endorsement
was issued. The same was not accepted by this Court and
then further affidavit of respondent No.2/accused No.2
enclosing Annexures-R1 to R8 was filed before this Court
wherein respondent No.2 has referred to the Endorsement
dated 14.02.2024 issued by the Government as per
Annexure-R6 and several proposals were rejected. It is also
stated that though the Principal Secretary passed the order
dated 15.10.2018 for providing benefit of grant, in view of
the ban by the Government, the said proposal was returned
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
and accordingly, order was passed on 24.12.2024. The copy
of same was marked as Annexure- R7. The said affidavit was
also not accepted by this Court. When the matter was listed
for framing of charges, compliance affidavit was filed by
respondent No.2 on 27.02.2025 wherein at paragraph-4, it is
stated that this Court vide order dated 30.05.2018 directed
respondent No.1 herein to dispose of the petition within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
said order. In view of the same, the said petition was
disposed of and directed respondent No.2 to examine and
consider post of the complainant as per the provisions. It is
also stated that list of candidates prepared as per date of
appointment of Group-D employees in private aided
educational institutions as on 16.05.2022 and same is
annexed at Annexure-R4. This compliance affidavit was also
not accepted. Then, separate affidavit was filed on
24.04.2025 wherein at paragraph-3 it is stated that in view
of direction of this Court dated 28.02.2025 to comply with
the order of the learned Single Judge, respondent No.2 has
written letter to the Principal Secretary to Government,
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
Department of Education for approving by giving benefits to
the complainant. The copy of the letter dated 05.03.2025 is
marked as Annexure-R1. Subsequently, further affidavit was
filed on 04.06.2025 for having complied with the order and
produced the Government Order dated 03.06.2025 admitting
the complainant to the grant-in-aid. Now the question before
this Court is whether the said Government Order is in
compliance with the order passed in earlier writ petition as
well as subsequent writ petition.
22. Now this Court would like to make mention of the
order passed in W.P.No.201810/2022. This Court has already
pointed out the discussion made at paragraphs-2, 7 and 10
of the said order in paragraph-18 of this order. The learned
Additional Advocate General also brought to the notice of this
Court paragraph-11 of the said order, which reads as
follows:
"11. The prayer made in the petition does not fit
into the facts and circumstances. However, this Court
can mould the relief. The representation sent by
respondent No.3 is not considered by the respondent
No.1 till this day and hence it is necessary to direct
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
the respondent No.2 to consider the same and pass
suitable orders".
23. However, the operative portion of the order i.e.,
paragraph-12 reads as follows:
"12. For the above said discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:
i. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the
letters of respondent No.2 dated 12.06.2020
(Annexure-C) and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with the law within a period of 04 weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of."
24. Having considered paragraphs-11 and 12 and
also paragraphs-2, 7 and 10, it is clear that the prayer made
in the writ petition does not fit into the facts and
circumstances. However, this Court has moulded the relief
and held that representation sent by respondent No.3 is not
considered by respondent No.1 till that day and hence, it is
necessary to direct respondent No.2 to consider the same
and pass suitable order and directed respondent No.2 to
pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
receipt of copy of said order. We have also considered the
order passed in earlier writ petition. In the said writ petition,
petitioner sought for direction to respondent No.1 to dispose
of the petition filed under Section 131 of the Karnataka
Education Act, immediately at the earliest. The learned
Single Judge by order dated 30.05.2018, directed
respondent No.1 to dispose of the petition within two months
from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
Accordingly, respondent No.1 passed order on 15.10.2018
which has been enclosed along with compliance affidavit. The
same was not accepted by this Court.
25. Having perused the affidavit filed on 04.06.2025,
wherein it is specifically stated at paragraph-4 that the case
of the complainant was considered by the Government and
order has been passed on 03.06.2025 admitting the
complainant to grant-in-aid. Hence, it is clear that, as a
special case and also not as a precedent in other cases, the
case of the petitioner is considered and order is passed.
Before passing said order, the Government has taken note of
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition i.e.,
W.P.No.201961/2017, so also taken note of the order of
Addl. Commissioner, Education Department, dated
15.10.2018 and also taken note of subsequent order passed
in writ petition i.e., W.P.No.201810/2022 dated 18.07.2024.
The Government has given consent for same and order was
passed.
26. In response to same, learned counsel appearing
for complainant filed detailed affidavit stating that the
compliance affidavit and also the Government Order dated
03.06.2025 produced as Annexure-R1 are not in consonance
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in earlier
writ petition and subsequent writ petition.
27. Subsequently, on 17.06.2025, matter was listed
for hearing before charge. Thereafter, there was no progress
in the matter. When the matter was listed on 03.07.2025, it
is observed that considering the submission of the learned
Additional Advocate General regarding Government Order
passed on 03.06.2025 and subsequent development, it is
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
appropriate to give both the parties a hearing before charge
and the case is not set down for framing of charge but
hearing before charge.
28. The very contention that the complainant ought
to have been given all benefits from the date of his
employment cannot be accepted under the contempt
jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.201810/2022 particularly at paragraph-11 has
observed that the prayer made in the petition does not fit
into facts and circumstances however, moulded the relief and
directed to consider the representation and to pass
appropriate orders. Now, order has been passed by the
respondents. As to whether the same is in terms of the claim
of the complainant or not cannot be decided in contempt
proceedings. While dealing with the contempt proceedings,
the Court has to take note as to whether the direction issued
has been complied. It is to be noted that in earlier writ
petition, learned Single Judge directed respondent No.1 to
dispose of the petition filed under Section 131 of the Act
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
copy of said order. Though the respondents earlier passed an
order not admitting him for grant-in-aid, but, the
respondents have now complied with the direction issued by
the learned Single Judge in subsequent writ petition and
passed order. Though the learned Senior counsel appearing
for complainant would contend that the same is not in terms
of the representation and claim made by the complainant
i.e., retrospectively with all benefits, all the said contentions
cannot be considered in the contempt proceedings. In the
writ petition, the direction issued was only to consider the
letter of respondent No.2 dated 12.06.2020 and pass
appropriate orders. Now, the order has been passed
admitting the complainant to grant-in-aid. If the complainant
has any grievance in respect of not considering back wages
and other benefits retrospectively, the same would give rise
to a new cause of action and the same cannot be considered
in the contempt petition. The scope of contempt proceedings
is very clear, this Court has to see as to whether the
direction issued was complied or not. In view of direction
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
given in W.P.No.201810/2022 vide order dated 18.07.2024
has been considered and order is passed and direction issued
in earlier writ petition has also been complied and in view of
the order passed by the Government as per Annexure-R1
along with the affidavit dated 04.06.2025, the question of
framing of charges does not arise. If the complainant has got
any other grievance, same can be agitated in separate
proceedings and not in the present contempt proceedings.
There are no materials to frame charge against the
respondents/accused since the direction has been complied
though with some delay, which has been explained in the
affidavit with apologies for delay. Accordingly, point for
consideration is answered in negative.
29. The principles laid down in the judgments relied
upon by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
complainant does not come to the aid of the complainant and
those have been discussed exercising other jurisdiction and
not in contempt proceedings except the judgment of High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Mrs. R.Lalithambai's case
supra and the same also not comes to the aid of complainant
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4681-DB
CCC No. 200228 of 2024
HC-KAR
since the directions are complied. As such, no case has been
made out to proceed further in the matter.
30. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
The Contempt proceedings is dropped.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NB
List No.:
CT:NI
