Sri Paramesha Vs Smt Gayithri I a S

SRI PARAMESHA S/O LATE KAILASAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS PAURAKARMIKA/ATTENDER TALAKADU GRAM PANCHAYATH TALAKADU VILLAGE T. NARASIPURA TLAUK MYSURU DISTRICT 571 122.

¶10

…COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJA PATEL G K - ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT GAYITHRI I A S THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH MYSORE 577 001.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

…ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI - ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:230-DB CCC No. 1122 of 2023

¶19

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE AND CONTEMPT SHOWN TO THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 30.03.2023 MADE IN W.P.NO.18192/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶25

This Contempt Petition is initiated by the complainant

¶26

in view of willful disobedience of an order dated 30.03.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18192/2021 vide Annexure-“A”.

¶27

Learned counsel Shri Basavaraja Patel G.K. for the complainant, Shri B.J. Somayaji, learned counsel for Accused No.1, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned AGA for Accused No.2, are present before Court.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:230-DB CCC No. 1122 of 2023

¶30

The learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.No.18192/2021 by its order dated 30.03.2023, has observed thus:

¶31

“3. I have also noticed from the endorsement dated 30/11/2020 (Annexure-N) that respondent No.2 had addressed a letter to respondent No.5 herein as per Reference No.11 to the said endorsement and the respondent No.2 directed respondent No.5 to take decision in the matter.

¶32

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, respondent No.5 herein shall take decision in the matter at the earliest within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶33

The grievance of the complainant is that the above said direction of the learned Single Judge has not been implemented till date.

¶34

However, in compliance of the above order of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for Accused No.1 has filed an affidavit in detail consisting paragraph Nos.1

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:230-DB CCC No. 1122 of 2023

¶37

to 6. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of

¶38

the said affidavit, which reads thus:

¶39

“3. Complainant was working as ‘Poura Karmik’ in Talakadu Town Panchayat from 29.09.1985. Town Panchayat became Mandal Panchayat and then became Grama Panchayat. Talakadu Grama Panchayat on 05.12.2008 passed a resolution to promote complainant to the post of Attender. Chief Executive officer, Zilla Panchayat, Mysuru on 09.06.2015 gave prior approval to the promotion of complainant to the post of Attender, under Section 113(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Grama Panchayat on 22.01.2020 passed the resolution to promote the complainant as Additional Bill Collector. Chief Executive Officer by OM dated 05.10.2021 gave prior approval to this promotion.

¶40

This Honourable Court on 30.03.2023 directed the 5^th respondent therein to take a decision in the matter for regularization of complainant services in the Grama Panchayat. Since the complainant is the permanent employee of Grama Panchayat the question of regularizing his services in the Grama Panchayat

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:230-DB CCC No. 1122 of 2023

¶42

does not arise. I gave the endorsement dated 06.02.2024 in this regard. Annexure ‘1’ is a copy of the endorsement dated 06.02.2024.”

¶43

Keeping in view the reasons stated in the affidavit

¶44

filed by Respondent No.1 / accused No.1, we find that the grievance of the complainant has been duly addressed. Accordingly, the present contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration. Hence, the contempt petition is hereby dropped.

¶45

However, complainant is reserved liberty to

¶46

proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶47

Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶50

KS

Sri Paramesha v. Smt Gayithri I a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Paramesha v. Smt Gayithri I a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A M Rajashekaraiah Vs Sri S D Gurumurthy

Sri M Rudrappa Vs Sri T K Anil Kumar

Sri. Bettegowda Vs Ashwini G

Mrs. Mary Lalithraj Vs Mr. B. Mariraj

Sri Gajendra Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T S Divakara Vs Sri Basavarajendra