Karnataka High Court
Shivaji Gangaram Shinde vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
RP No. 100072 of 2025
C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REVIEW PETITION NO.100072 OF 2025
C/W. REVIEW PETITION NO.100075 OF 2025
IN R.P.NO.100072/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAJI GANGARAM SHINDE,
AGE: 73 YEARS,
OCC: RETD HEADMASTER,
R/O: 200/16, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI - 591 302.
2. VISHWA BHARAT SEVA SAMITHI,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
VIJAY P. NANDIHALLI,
R/O: 1644 ALVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
(BY SRI. F. V. PATIL & SRI. RAMESH MISALE, ADVOCATES)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
RP No. 100072 of 2025
C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI - 590 001.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
BELAGAVI - 591 302.
5. THE HEAD MASTER MADHYMIKA VIDYALAYA
JAMBOTI, KHANAPUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
A/W PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEUDRE R/W ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION
AND MODIFY THE ORDER IN WP NO.108934/2017 DATED 10.06.2024
VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PAY INTEREST TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER
FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE SERVICE BENEFITS AND THE
CLAIM OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER FOR THE SALARIES DURING THE
PERIOD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2010 AND SEPTEMBER 2012 WITHIN A
STIPULATED TIME WITH THE INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN R.P.NO.100075/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAJI GANGARAM SHINDE,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: RETD HEADMASTER,
R/O: 200/16, SHIVAJI NAGAR, KHANAPUR,
BELAGAVI - 591 302.
2. VISHWA BHARAT SEVA SAMITHI,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
VIJAY P. NANDIHALLI,
R/O: 1644 ALVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. F. V. PATIL & SRI. RAMESH MISALE, ADVOCATES)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
RP No. 100072 of 2025
C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAM
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLI INSTRUCTIONS, CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
BELAGAVI - 591 302.
5. THE HEAD MASTER,
MADYAMIKA VIDYALAYA, JAMBOTI,
KHANAPURA TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 590 001.
6. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
(A AND E), KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVT. ADVOCATE
A/W SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE R/W ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION
AND MODIFY THE ORDER IN WP NO.108640/2017 DATED 10.06.2024
VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PAY INTEREST TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER
FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE SERVICE BENEFITS AND THE
CLAIM OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER FOR THE SALARIES DURING THE
PERIOD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2010- AND SEPTEMBER 2012 WITHIN A
STIPULATED TIME WITH THE INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
RP No. 100072 of 2025
C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025
HC-KAR
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. This is another classic example of a case where
the authorities in their attempt to frustrate the orders
passed by this Court have overreached their bounds. This
Court is constrained to express its deep sense of regret,
particularly when after contest it had accepted the plea of
a helpless petitioner No.1, who having attained the age of
superannuation after rendering his services as a
Headmaster of a School was merely asking his rightful
entitlement of salaries and the pensionary benefits and
the interest for the delayed payments thereof.
2. Petitioner No.1 has been knocking the doors of
this Court on several occasions, over a period of fifteen
years. In that, he had filed the petitions in W.P.
Nos.108640 of 2017 and 108934 of 2017 seeking
payment of interest at 12% per annum compounded
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
monthly on the amount of pension and pensionary
benefits of ₹23,74,734/- for the delayed period of 30
months and 17 days i.e., from 01.10.2012 to 17.04.2015
and for a direction to the respondent-authorities to pay
the salary due to him for the period from November-2010
to September-2012 amounting to ₹9,32,858/- with
interest at 24% per annum.
3. This Court by order, dated 10.06.2024 after
hearing petitioner No.1 and the contesting respondent-
State as well as the Institution, at paragraph Nos.11, 12
and 13 had passed the following order:
"11. Appointment of the petitioner in the fifth
respondent - Institute and he working there till he
attaining the age of superannuation is not denied.
Though, the Administrator, who had issued an order
of suspension, subsequent to the Managing
Committee taking over the charge from him has
revoked the said suspension order. The Managing
Committee itself has recommended to the authorities
that the suspension order, which was passed by the
Administrator was neither delivered to the petitioner
nor the same was given effect to. In other words, the
so called suspension order has remained ineffective
even though it was stated to have been passed by
the Administrator. The petitioner cannot be found
fault with, if the suspension order was not given
effect to. And petitioner cannot be deprived of his
legitimate entitlement of his salaries. It appears for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
no fault of the petitioner, he was placed under
suspension for he not reporting to the place to which
he was transferred, and the very same institute has
subsequently revoked the suspension order,
specifically recommending to the authorities that the
suspension order was never handed over to the
petitioner. These circumstances lead to irresistible
conclusion that the suspension order was nonest. In
other words, the suspension order has not affected
the continuation of service of the petitioner at the
fifth respondent - institute, even as evidenced by the
very own communication of the fifth respondent
addressed to the authorities produced at Annexure-M
in W.P. No.108934/2017.
12. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis,
this Court is of considered view that the petitions are
deserve to be allowed in part. The same are allowed
in part.
13. The respondents - authorities shall
consider the payment of interest to the petitioner for
the delayed payment of the service benefits as
claimed in W.P. No.108640/2017 and shall also
consider the claim of the petitioner for salaries
during the period between November-2010 and
September-2012, in accordance with law, at any
rate, within an outer limit of three (3) months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
4. Non-compliance of the aforesaid order,
constrained petitioner No.1 to prefer contempt petitions
in C.C. Nos.100013 of 2025 and 100016 of 2025.
5. Twofold stand was taken by the respondent-
State to counter the allegation of contempt. Firstly, it is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
contended that the petitioner was not entitled for the
salary for the period between November-2010 and
September-2012, as he purportedly did not work for the
said period. Secondly, the order passed by this Court had
merely directed the respondent-authorities without
specific direction to any particular authority, who has to
make the said payments and this had apparently led the
official respondents and the management inter se to deny
each one's liability.
6. In support of the first contention, apparently
the orders dated 02.09.2024, 06.11.2024 and
02.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Director
(Administration) were furnished. Taking note of the
aforesaid two contentions urged by the respondent -
authorities, the contempt proceedings were dropped
reserving liberty to petitioner No.1 to avail such remedy
as may be available. It is under these circumstances,
these review petitions are filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2
seeking indulgence of this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel Shri F.V. Patil and
Shri Ramesh Misale appearing for petitioner Nos.1 and 2
submitted that in view of the technical objection raised by
the respondent-authorities that the order passed in the
writ petitions not specifically pointing out as to who has
to make the payment, the order requires to be modified.
8. In response, Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, Principal
Government Advocate appearing along with learned
HCGP for the respondent-State furnishing a memo dated
22.07.2025 along with the photocopies of aforesaid three
orders, would submit that this Court at paragraph No.13
of its order had directed the authorities to consider the
payment of the salary and interest in accordance with
law. Therefore, the authorities have passed the orders
declining to pay the salary to the petitioner, since he had
not reported to the post where he was transferred, and
not having worked for the said period he was not entitled
for the salary and such amount, if any, was to be paid by
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
petitioner No.2-Institution. Therefore, the said orders
came to be passed in consideration of the direction issued
by this Court at paragraph No.13. He submits that there
is no fault on the part of the respondent-authorities, if
they have not complied with the orders of this Court. He
also adds that this aspect of the matter is taken note of in
the contempt proceedings, while dropping the same.
9. Upon a query by this Court to the learned
Principal Government Advocate, bringing to his attention
the contents of paragraph Nos.4, 7, 9 and 11 of the
order dated 10.06.2024, as to in the light of
determination by this Court the issue with regard to the
entitlement of the petitioner No.1 of his salaries for the
said period and for the interest on delayed payment, was
it still open for the respondent-authorities to have passed
the orders as per document Nos.1 to 3 filed along with
the memo?, he fairly, submits that if the order dated
10.06.2024 read in its entirety, there was no scope of
passing such orders. However, he hastens to add that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
mere reading of paragraph No.13 of the order dated
10.06.2024 would give an indication that the respondent-
authorities had the liberty to pass orders in accordance
with law. He further fairly submits that there appears to
be a mistake on the part of the respondent-authorities in
reading the said paragraph of the order dated
10.06.2024, resulting in passing of the orders produced
along with the memo.
10. The aforesaid submission made by the learned
Principal Government Advocate cannot be countenanced
for more than one reason. Firstly, the order dated
10.06.2024 was passed by this Court taking into
consideration the facts and the merits of the submissions
made by the respective counsel, categorically holding that
the petitioner No.1 cannot be held responsible for he not
reporting to the place to which he was transferred and
that he was entitled for the salaries for the period
between November-2010 and September-2012, which
cannot be denied. It is in the light of this specific finding
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
of this Court, directions at paragraph No.13 were given.
Though this Court while issuing the said directions to the
respondent-authorities had indeed mentioned that the
same shall be considered "in accordance with law",
which cannot and ought not to have been construed to
have reserved liberty to the respondent-authorities to
reopen the case to find out, if petitioner No.1 was entitled
for the salaries for the said period. The said direction was
specifically for the payment of interest to the petitioner
No.1 for the delayed payment of service benefits and for
the salaries during November-2010 and September-2012
to be considered and paid in accordance with law and not
to reopen and reconsider his entitlement, as sought to be
contended. The authorities passing the subsequent orders
as produced along with the memo purportedly under
mistaken understanding of the orders as sought to be
contended by the learned Principal Government Advocate
cannot be the reason to deny the fruits of the order dated
10.06.2024.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
11. Secondly, the stand taken by the respondent-
authorities in the contempt proceedings is that the order
passed by this Court was not a specific as to whom the
direction was issued. This, in the considered view of this
Court apart from being reckless, is a deliberate attempt
to avoid implementation of the orders of the Court. The
array of the parties in the writ petitions gives no room for
any confusion or misunderstanding. Generally, when the
directions of this nature are issued to the authorities, that
too after hearing the respective counsels on the
contentious issues, it is understood that the concerned
authorities would take necessary action in the matter,
without subsequently disowning their responsibility on
hyper technical grounds of "order not being specific or not
being directed to a particular authority". Such an
objection can be raised only with a deliberate intention of
frustrating the orders passed by this Court.
12. Necessary also to note that, the petitioner No.1
who is presently aged about 73 years, has been knocking
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
the doors of this Court for more than six occasions over
fifteen years. This Court cannot be oblivious to the plight
of a person like petitioner No.1, who retired as a
Headmaster of a School to receive his rightful
entitlement. He cannot be constrained, forced and
compelled to approach the Courts repeatedly merely
because of deliberate inaction on the part of the
respondent-authorities, who despite having the
providence of good legal counsel and advice, to come and
say that they misunderstood the orders of this Court,
while complying with the same. This is nothing but an
attempt to delude and cause impediment in
implementation of the orders passed by this Court.
13. Learned Principal Government Advocate
vehemently contended that, while dropping the contempt
proceedings, the contempt Court had reserved liberty to
petitioner No.1 to avail such remedy as may be available
under law and as such petitioner No.1 be directed to
initiate separate proceedings challenging the orders
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
produced along with the memo. The said submission
under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
cannot be acceded to. This is in view of the fact that
when this Court after adverting to the facts, merits the
submissions of the parties had categorically found that
the petitioner No.1 being entitled for the salaries for the
period between November-2010 and September-2012, it
was not open for the respondent-authorities to have sat
over the judgment and order of this Court and reverse
the same by reading paragraph No.13 of the said order in
isolation and giving their own reasons, particularly when
the order passed by this Court has not been put to
challenge by them and the same having attained finality.
14. Now, on a specific query by this Court to the
learned Principal Government Advocate, who on enquiry
with the Officers, who are present before this Court,
submits that it is respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are liable
to make the payment as directed.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
15. In that view the matter, the following:
ORDER
(a) The review petitions are allowed.
(b) The orders in W.P. Nos.108640/2017 and
108934/2017, dated 10.06.2024, is
modified.
(c) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay to
petitioner No.1 the interest at the rate of
12% p.a. for the delayed payment of the
service benefits as claimed in W.P.
No.108640/2017.
(d) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay salaries
payable to petitioner No.1 for the period
between November-2010 to September-
2012 with interest at 12% p.a. as claimed
in W.P. No.108934/2017.
(e) The aforesaid payments shall be made
within a period of 30 days from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(f) It is made clear that should there be any
shall jointly pay ₹5,000/- per day as cost
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073
HC-KAR
to the petitioner No.1 out of their
personal account, until the petitioner No.1
is paid his dues as directed.
(g) In addition, they shall also personally pay
cost of ₹1,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1
for having deliberately avoided the
implementation of the orders by taking
inconsistent and reckless stand and
subjecting him to endless agony by
compelling him to repeatedly approach
this Court.
(h) In light of the disposal of the petitions,
the pending applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and the same
are accordingly disposed off.
(i) List these matters on 29.08.2025 to
report compliance.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
VNP / CT-ASC
