Disposed

Sri. N. K. Ouseph v. Sri. Ramjeet Singh

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024CCC/937/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complaint alleging disobedience of a Single Judge's directions to pay difference in pay, 50% backwages, consequential benefits and costs to a dismissed CPRI employee. The court found no time limit had been prescribed for compliance, so no wilful contempt was made out, but directed compliance within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to comply with the order dated 23.09.2023 within six weeks; no contempt initiated.

Sri. N. K. Ouseph Vs Sri. Ramjeet Singh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36180-DB CCC No. 937 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶8

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No. 937 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. N. K. OUSEPH, S/O LATE KURUVILLA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.4, GEO HOUSE, 1^ST A CROSS, NAGARAJ LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANDRA, BENGALURU-560032

¶11

…COMPLAINANT

¶12

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI A. J. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. RAMJEET SINGH, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MINISTRY OF ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PROF C.V. RAMAN ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560080.

¶16

SRI B. A. SAWALE, DIRECTOR GENERAL AND APPLELLATE AUTHORITY,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:36180-DB CCC No. 937 of 2024

¶19

C.P.R. I (CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE), SADASHIVANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560080.

¶20

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2023 IN WP No.31039/2013(S-RES) C/W WP No.7913/2014(S-DIS).

¶21

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶25

Heard learned advocate Mr. A.J. Srinivasan for the

¶26

complainant, who appeared online.

¶27

Following are the directions passed by learned Single Judge

¶28

in the order dated 23.09.2023 which are brought under the contempt jurisdiction,

¶29

“26. The petitioner, having attained the age of superannuation, is entitled to be reimbursed the difference in pay suffered as a result of the reduction in his rank and pay until the date of his dismissal. The respondent is

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36180-DB CCC No. 937 of 2024

¶31

directed to duly calculate and remit the difference in pay to the petitioner from the effective date of his reduction in rank and pay, until the date of his dismissal.

¶32

The petitioner, having been dismissed from service, is also entitled to 50% backwages from the date of his dismissal, until the date of his retirement. The petitioner will also be entitled to all consequential benefits arising out of this order. It is made clear that for the purpose of providing pensionary benefits, the petitioner shall be considered as having retired as a Technician (Grade-3) and receive all consequential benefits, as well.

¶33

I also deem it fit to deprecate the unfair means adopted by the 1st Respondent-CPRI in punishing the members of the CPRI Employees’ Union for espousing the cause of its employees, not only in the present matters but also in W.P.Nos.29350/2013 and 30411/2013 decided by this Court in which also this unfair conduct was noticed and deprecated. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to impose costs of Rs.50,000/- on the Respondents, payable to the petitioner.

¶34

This Court is hopeful that an acclaimed institution like the CPRI, on whom a great number of people are dependent for securing employment as a means of livelihood, will refrain from acting on its prejudices in the future.”

¶35

A bare reading of the aforesaid directions indicate that for the compliance thereof, no time limit is prescribed by learned Single Judge. In that view, at this stage, it could not be said that any of the respondents have committed any willful default or contempt of Court.

¶36

At the same time, the directions of the Court should not go uncomplied with. Therefore, it is directed that the directions issued

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:36180-DB CCC No. 937 of 2024

¶39

by learned Single Judge in the order dated 23.09.2023 shall be complied with by the respondents concerned within six weeks from today failing which, the complainant will have a right to invoke the contempt jurisdiction.

¶40

5. With the above observations, the contempt proceedings are disposed of.

¶41

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶43

VBS

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri. N. K. Ouseph v. Sri. Ramjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N. K. Ouseph v. Sri. Ramjeet Singh

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

Sri K S Sudhakara Vs the State of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary Vs Sri. Syed Mansoor Khader

Sri K C Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Meghana Kuruvalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kumar, Vs Sri C T Manjunath

R M Mariswamy Vs the State of Karnataka