[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sadashivappa vs Deepak Chavan on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19159-DB
CCC No. 455 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 455 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SADASHIVAPPA
S/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT 308
POORVI AIRAVATHA
3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, 2ND PHASE
THALAGATTAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 109.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M 1. DEEPAK CHAVAN
Location: FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
High Court of
Karnataka TO THE COMPLAINANT
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001
2. PRABHULINGA KAVALIKATTI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE COMPLAINANT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19159-DB
CCC No. 455 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR
OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
BENGALURU - 560 001
... ACCUSED
3. GOVERNMENT OF KARANTAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
...PRO-FORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ISSUE NOTICE TO
ACCUSED AND SUITABLY PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR WILFUL
DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2024 PASSED IN
W.P. NO.19268/2024, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful
disobedience of the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19268/2024 (S-KSAT)
NC: 2026:KHC:19159-DB
HC-KAR
[impugned order]. The operative part of the said order reads as
under:
"In the above circumstances, this Petition is allowed
and following directions are issued:
[i] A Writ of Mandamus issues to the Respondents to
sanction & release regular pension & all terminal
benefits to the Petitioner within two months, with
interest at the rate of 1% per mensum from the day the
same have been withheld.
[2] The rate of interest shall stand altered to 2% in
the place of 1% per mensum with retrospective effect, if
delay exceeds two months. Further, Respondents shall
pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only
to the Petitioner.
[3] The interest & costs may be recovered from the
erring officials of the concerned Departments, in
accordance with law.
Liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to make an
appropriate representation to the Respondents to seek
redressal of his grievance as to fitment of pay and such
other things. If such a representation is made, the
same shall be considered within a period of eight
weeks on merits. The delay issue shall not be raised
since the legal battle has been fought all through."
2. During the course of the present proceedings, the accused had
filed compliance affidavit indicating the amounts paid to the
complainant. However, the main dispute is regarding the payment of
interest.
3. The accused has filed the last compliance affidavit on
06.04.2026 setting out in detail the calculation of the amounts paid. In
NC: 2026:KHC:19159-DB
HC-KAR
one of the tabular statements it is stated that it had calculated the
interest at the rate of 2% per month as per the compliance affidavit
filed on 02.04.2025. The learned counsel for the complainant
submitted that this indicates that interest after 02.04.2025 has not
been calculated. However, the reference to the date in the compliance
affidavit is erroneous. It refers to compliance affidavit filed on
02.04.2026 and the interest has been calculated upto that date.
4. The complainant has also filed a rejoinder to the compliance
affidavit dated 06.04.2026 to point out variation in the calculations. A
plain reading of the said rejoinder indicates that the variation is on
account of interest computed at `17,79,200/- on a sum of `3,12,663/-
which is the part of complainant's salary that was withheld. The claim
for the said sum arises on account of 50% salary that was withheld
from 07.04.1998 to 08.03.2000, during which the complainant was
placed under suspension. There is no dispute as to the amount of
`3,12,663/- which has been remitted to the complainant's accounts
today.
5. As noted above, the dispute is only regarding the interest on
the said amount, which the complainant has computed at
`17,79,200/-.
NC: 2026:KHC:19159-DB
HC-KAR
6. There is also a discrepancy in the computation of the earned
leave encashment benefit i.e., a sum of `16,800/- on account of
interest payable on the amount towards leave engagement benefit.
7. As far as the claim for interest of `17,79,200/- is concerned, the
same is clearly not a part of the terminal benefits and therefore there
is no order directing payment of this interest. Consequently, no
proceedings for disobedience of order dated 21.11.2024 under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are maintainable on account of
non-admission of this claim.
8. We also find no error in the Interest as calculated for the
earned leave encashment benefit as computed by the accused. In
any event, no proceedings for willful disobedience of the orders
passed by this Court are required to be initiated on this account.
9. The complaint is, accordingly, closed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18
