Disposed

Sri Prabhudeva M G v. Sri. S.R. Umashankar

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2021CCC/340/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that despite belated compliance with an earlier order directing salary payments, no further contempt action was warranted. The petition was disposed of accepting an apology, though costs of Rs. 15,000 were imposed against the State Government due to gross delay.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by accepting apology; costs of Rs. 15,000 imposed on State Government to be recovered from defaulting officers.

Sri Prabhudeva M G Vs Sri. S.R. Umashankar — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

C.C.C NO. 340 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI PRABHUDEVA M.G S/O M.C. GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY SBRR MAHAJANA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE-570 012

¶11

...COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SMT. JYOTHI B KANGOKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

SRI .S.R. UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶15

SMT. KANAGAVALLI M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 012

¶16

SMT. GEETHA R AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMETN OF RPE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 012

¶17

¶18

SMT. S. UMARANI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PRINCIPAL SBRR MAHAJANA PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE-570 012

¶19

DR. VIJAYALAKSHMI MURALIDHAR .P AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS HON’BLE SECRETARY MAHAJANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE-570 012

¶20

ACCUSED

¶21

(BY SHRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR A1 TO A3)

¶22

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/ RESPONDENTS FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT PASSED IN W.P. NO.46228/2018 (S-RES) DATED 18.07.2019 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

complainant.

¶27

As per the order dated 18^th July 2019, the State Government and other official-respondents (respondents No.1 to 3 in W.P.No.46228/2018) were directed to pay difference in the salary to the complainant within a period of three months from 18^th July 2019. The complainant-petitioner is a Lecturer in Chemistry working at SBRR Mahajana Pre-University College,

¶28

¶29

Mysuru. Not only that the said order was not complied with but the official-respondents (State Government) did not challenge the order of which breach is alleged. The time for compliance with the order had expired on 17^th October 2019. After the lapse of more than seven months, on 9^th June 2020, an appeal against the order of which breach is alleged was belatedly filed. At no stage, the order of which breach is alleged was stayed.

¶30

By filing an affidavit of Smt. Geetha G.R., Deputy Director, the Department of Pre-University Education, Mysuru on 1^st December 2020, time was sought on the ground that the appeal was moved before the concerned Bench. On 23^rd December 2020, this Court granted an adjournment to the accused by passing the following order:

¶31

“Accused Nos.1 and 2 are present via Video Conferencing. There is absolutely no explanation for non-compliance with the order dated 18^th July, 2019 for such a long time. The learned Additional Advocate General assures the Court that the order will be complied with.

¶32

For reporting compliance, the contempt petition shall be listed under the caption of ‘Orders’ on 11^th January, 2021. We make it clear that grant of an adjournment will not amount to extension of time to comply with the order passed by this Court.”

¶33

The order dated 23^rd December 2020 records the assurance of the learned Additional Government Advocate that

¶34

the order of which breach is alleged will be complied with.

¶35

¶36

Now, the memo dated 8^th January 2021 states that the order was complied with as late as 7^th January 2021 by paying a sum of Rs.11,74,733/-. In the memo filed, a prayer is made accepting the apology tendered in the affidavit of Smt. Geetha G.R.

¶37

At this stage, we may note that the order dated 18^th December 2020 passed in this contempt petition records that the appeal preferred against the order of which breach is committed has been dismissed. Instead of paying the amount immediately, the State Government has waited till 7^th January 2021 to pay the amount. In view of belated compliance, no further action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deserves to be taken.

¶38

Considering the manner in which the State Government officials have acted and the gross delay in complying with the order of which breach is alleged, the State Government will have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.15,000/-.

¶39

By accepting the apology, the petition is disposed of.

¶40

¶41

We direct the State Government to pay the costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from today.

¶42

It will be open for the State Government to recover

¶43

the amount from the defaulting officers who are responsible for non-compliance with the order of this Court.

¶44

Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance, the petition shall be listed on 15^th February 2021 under the caption of ‘Orders’.

¶45

We may note here that today the accused are personally present before the Court through Video conferencing.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Prabhudeva M G v. Sri. S.R. Umashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prabhudeva M G v. Sri. S.R. Umashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Exports Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Sri Ganganna T Vs the Senior Geologist

The Advocates Association Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Smt Swetha Krishnappa Vs Smt Roopa

Sri S N Venkatachalapathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.G.S. Nagarjuna Vs Sri. K. Rathanaiah