Disposed

Sri Jagadeesh Basappa Hosamani v. Sri T H M Kumar

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2021CCC/425/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of an order dated 18.03.2021 directing promotion of the complainant. Finding no direction in that order for promotion with retrospective effect from 2008, the court dropped the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped due to lack of direction for retrospective promotion in the impugned order.

Sri Jagadeesh Basappa Hosamani Vs Sri T H M Kumar — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

C.C.C. NO.425 OF 2021

¶9

¶10

W.P.NO.1726 OF 2021 (S)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI JAGADEESH BASAPPA HOSAMANI, S/O BASAPPA NAGAPPA HOSAMANI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD SUB-DIVISION, JAMAKHANDI, C/O A JAIKUMAR, VASUNDARA SKY SCAPE, FF01, BLOCK-A, VALLABHANAGAR, BIKAAJPURA, DODDALAKKASANDRA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...COMPLAINANT (BY SRI K GURUDHATTA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE )

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI T.H.M.KUMAR, MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, NO.6, 1ST STATE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT,

¶15

¶16

BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. …ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SRI H.N SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

(NOTE: THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MADE PARTY IN THIS CONTEMPT PETITION SINCE NO DIRECTION IS ISSUED AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶19

---THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 10 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO INITIATE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DIS-OBEYING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.1726/2021 DATED 18.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Mr. Gurudhatta, learned counsel for Mr. Praveen

¶23

Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶24

Mr. H.N.Shashidahara, learned counsel for the

¶25

accused.

¶26

This petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of the direction contained in the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1726/2021, by which the writ petition filed by the complainant was disposed of with the following direction:

¶27

¶28

"2. Grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed by the concerned respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 is hereby directed to take note of petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2020 vide annexure-M along with the relevant papers including impugned order dated 16.5.2020 vide Annexure-K and final order dated 16.07.2019 vide Annexure-H and proceed to take a decision. If the petitioner is otherwise eligible he shall be promoted from the date of his junior's promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and extend all monetary benefits including service benefits. In the event, if the petitioner is not eligible with reference to relevant provision of law, necessary speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of."

¶29

When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that complainant is promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Officer in the pay scale of Rs.52,650-97,100 with effect from 18.5.2020 i.e. from the date his junior one Veena was promoted to the aforesaid post with consequential benefits.

¶30

¶31

The aforesaid submission has been opposed by

¶32

the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that he is entitled for promotion with effect from the year 2008 and not from the year 2020 and therefore the accused should be punished.

¶33

We have considered the submission made on

¶34

both the sides.

¶35

On perusal of the order dated 18.03.2021 it is evident that there is no direction to promote the complainant with effect from the year 2008. Therefore, we do not find any ground to proceed with the contempt proceedings. However, liberty is reserved to the complainant to assail the validity of the order dated 25.08.2021 in accordance with law.

¶36

Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sri Jagadeesh Basappa Hosamani v. Sri T H M Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jagadeesh Basappa Hosamani v. Sri T H M Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs Smt. Susheelamma

The Commissioner Vs Smt Byramma

Smt Nalini Vs Smt Tara N Chandavarkar

Devas Multimedia Private Limited Vs the Joint Director

Smt. S v Leelavathi Vs Sri Rajesh Gowda

Kumars Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Excise