Dismissed

Shanthakumar D/O S. Sullad v. Muralidhar Pai and Ors.

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2023CCC/200156/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil contempt petition regarding non-compliance with a writ order on pension benefits, the court disposed of the proceedings against the respondents. It observed that a compliance affidavit addressed grievances regarding gratuity, pension revision, and arrears, pending further clarifications from the Pension Sanctioning Authority. Consequently, no punishment was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reserved liberty to approach Pension Sanctioning Authority for clarifications to compute arrears; contempt proceedings dismissed.

Shanthakumar D/O S. Sullad Vs Muralidhar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:5410-DB CCC No. 200156 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶9

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200156 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHANTHAKUMARI D/O S. SULLAD

¶12

AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED SR. TYPIST, C/O M.C. MIRAJAKAR BASEL MISSION COMPOUND, BUNGALOW ONI, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-29.

¶13

…COMPLAINANT

¶14

(BY SRI. P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶15

Digitally signed by SWETA KULKARNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI MURALIDHAR PAI REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

SRI GANESH GANGADHARAPPA KURUWATTI THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA THROUGH ITS

¶20

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:5410-DB CCC No. 200156 of 2022

¶22

VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶23

SRI NAGARAJ S. THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BAGALKOT,

¶24

DIST. BAGALKOT-587102.

¶25

…ACCUSED

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶27

…PROFORMA PARTY

¶28

(BY SRI R.S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R/A1 TO A/R3; SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R4)

¶29

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING PUNISHING THEM INSOFAR AS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED IN WP NO.103147/2013 DATED 22.10.2019 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER FOR TAKING ACTION AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING PUNISHING THEM WITH IMPRISONMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.M. SHYAM PRASAD J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The complainant has succeeded in her writ petition in W.P.No.103147/2013, which is disposed of on 22.10.2019 inasmuch as the order for her compulsory

¶33

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:5410-DB CCC No. 200156 of 2022

¶34

retirement and denial of certain financial benefits is quashed with the declaration that she would be entitled for continuity of service for the purposes of pension and

¶35

all other terminal benefits. The complainant is compulsorily retired w.e.f. 12.11.2009, and but for compulsory retirement, the complainant would have attained superannuation on 31.03.2012. The complainant’s primary grievance is that, despite specific directions as aforesaid, pension and other benefits have not been settled in the light of the directions.

¶36

Presently, a compliance affidavit is filed, and this affidavit covers three aspects of non-compliance alleged by the complainant. Firstly, that Death-cumRetirement Gratuity (DCRG) and Commuted Value Pension (CVP) are not re-visited after the writ Court’s order dated 22.10.2019; secondly, though the pension is re-fixed at the rate of Rs.15,200/- p.m., the difference, because the pension is initially fixed at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m., has not been paid from 01.04.2012;

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:5410-DB CCC No. 200156 of 2022

¶38

thirdly, the pension is not being paid at the re-fixed rate

¶39

even for the period commencing from 01.04.2012.

¶40

The compliance affidavit is categorical that

¶41

because the complainant, upon being compulsorily retired, has received DCRG in a sum of Rs.5,01,600/- and CVP in a sum of Rs.5,96,370/- and she would be entitled to salary as against pension paid at the rate of Rs.4,000/p.m. for the period between 12.11.2009 and 30.04.2012 subject to computation and certain deduction. Therefore, clarifications have been sought for from the Pension Sanctioning Authority vide communication dated 28.03.2023, and such clarification is awaited. If the Pension Sanctioning Authority issues clarifications, the amount payable for the aforesaid period between 12.11.2009 and 30.04.2012, subject to reworking the computation, including the payments received as DCRG and CVP, would be computed and appropriate authorization issued, if necessary.

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:5410-DB CCC No. 200156 of 2022

¶43

As regards the other two grievances, it is stated in the compliance affidavit that the authorization letter bearing No. PV14/2/1521334845/ 209120 7249/ 395783/385793 dated 21.03.2023 is issued. This authorization would enable the complainant to receive the difference in pension for the period from 01.04.2012 and also current pension, and the complainant will have to approach the competent authority with necessary representation for disbursement consequent to the authorization as aforesaid.

¶44

In the above circumstances, this Court must opine that there is no occasion for continuance of the contempt proceedings, and the same must be disposed of but with certain liberty to the complainant. As such, the complainant is reserved liberty to approach Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapura - the Pension Sanctioning Authority - along with a certified copy of this order for clarifications to be sent to the Accountant General Office, at the earliest. If such representation is

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:5410-DB CCC No. 200156 of 2022

¶46

filed, the aforesaid Pension Sanctioning Authority shall send clarifications at the earliest and without delay and upon receipt of such clarifications, the office of the Accountant General shall take necessary decision post

haste.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Shanthakumar D/O S. Sullad v. Muralidhar Pai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthakumar D/O S. Sullad v. Muralidhar Pai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaraj Dhanke Vs G S Srinivas Cao and Ors.

Mohammed Kaleemuddin S/O Late Mohammed Aleemuddin Khateeb Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Nagaraj and Ors. Vs S R Umashankar IAS and Ors.

Sujata and Ors. Vs Asmitha Dhananjay Kokate and Anr.

Gurappa and Anr. Vs Shivakumar and Anr.

The Branch Manager, Oriental Vs Kirti and Anr.