[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shruthi J U vs Poornima B R on 10 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20022-DB
CCC No. 297 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH 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. 297 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHRUTHI J.U.
D/O LATE UMESHA J
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT C/O. MANJUNATHA S.N.
D.NO. 183, HARITHSA NILAYA
CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI
NEAR SBI BANK, HASSAN - 01
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. POORNIMA B.R., I.A.S.
signed by
VEERENDRA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KUMAR K M
ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN - 01
Location:
High Court of ...ACCUSED
Karnataka
(BY SRI SUBRAMNAYA R., ADVOCATE A/W
SRI DEVARAJA M.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.15771/2022 DATED 24.07.2024 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20022-DB
CCC No. 297 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 24.07.2024 passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15771/2022 (S-KSAT),
whereby the respondent-authority was directed to consider the
application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in
terms of the Rules in force without reference to the fact that the
complainant is a married daughter of the deceased employee.
Thus, the complainant's application for compassionate appointment
could not be rejected on the ground of marital status.
2. The accused has filed an endorsement dated 04.04.2026,
rejecting the complainant's application for compassionate
appointment. Although the English translation of the endorsement
does seem to suggest that it was rejected on the ground that the
complainant was married before the demise of her father, however,
NC: 2026:KHC:20022-DB
HC-KAR
the Kannada version (which is the original) indicates the reason for
rejection was that the complainant was not dependant on the
deceased.
3. Additionally, it is stated that as far as the complainant's
mother is concerned, (who was the only heir of the deceased
employee), the family pension has been settled and is being paid.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits
that the complainant could not be considered as not dependant on
the ground of the marital status and therefore the two are linked.
He also submits that the grant of family pension does not preclude
the appointment on compassionate grounds.
5. The endorsement also indicates that one of the reasons for
rejection was, the complainant was not living with the deceased at
the material time. This reason was also disputed by the learned
counsel for the complainant.
6. We do not consider it necessary to examine the merits and
the grounds on which the complainant's application was rejected.
However, it is clear that it was not rejected on the ground of her
NC: 2026:KHC:20022-DB
HC-KAR
marital status. It was rejected on the ground that (i) she was not
living with the deceased at the material time; (ii) that she is not
dependant on the deceased; and (iii) that her mother has been
granted family pension.
7. In view of the above, it would not be appropriate to initiate
any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
complaint is, accordingly, closed.
8. We, however, clarify that this order would not preclude the
complainant from availing substantive remedies, if any, in respect
to the endorsement dated 04.04.2026, albeit in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
