Allowed

Shivaji Gangaram Shinde v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2025RP/100072/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired headmaster sought review of an order directing payment of salaries and interest for service benefits. The High Court allowed the review, finding the lower authorities had recklessly misinterpreted orders to deny pay, and directed specific respondents to pay dues with penalties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3 and 4 directed to pay salaries for Nov 2010–Sept 2012, 12% interest on benefits, and daily penalties for non-compliance.

Shivaji Gangaram Shinde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO.100072 OF 2025 C/W. REVIEW PETITION NO.100075 OF 2025

¶9

IN R.P.NO.100072/2025: BETWEEN:

¶10

SHIVAJI GANGARAM SHINDE, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RETD HEADMASTER, R/O: 200/16, SHIVAJI NAGAR, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI – 591 302.

¶11

VISHWA BHARAT SEVA SAMITHI, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, VIJAY P. NANDIHALLI, R/O: 1644 ALVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

(BY SRI. F. V. PATIL & SRI. RAMESH MISALE, ADVOCATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶22

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI - 591 302.

¶23

THE HEAD MASTER MADHYMIKA VIDYALAYA JAMBOTI, KHANAPUR TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE A/W PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶26

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEUDRE R/W ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND MODIFY THE ORDER IN WP NO.108934/2017 DATED 10.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PAY INTEREST TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE SERVICE BENEFITS AND THE CLAIM OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER FOR THE SALARIES DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2010 AND SEPTEMBER 2012 WITHIN A STIPULATED TIME WITH THE INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

IN R.P.NO.100075/2025: BETWEEN:

¶28

SHIVAJI GANGARAM SHINDE, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: RETD HEADMASTER, R/O: 200/16, SHIVAJI NAGAR, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI - 591 302.

¶29

VISHWA BHARAT SEVA SAMITHI, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, VIJAY P. NANDIHALLI, R/O: 1644 ALVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶30

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. F. V. PATIL & SRI. RAMESH MISALE, ADVOCATES)

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKAM BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶35

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶36

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLI INSTRUCTIONS, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶37

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI - 591 302.

¶38

THE HEAD MASTER, MADYAMIKA VIDYALAYA, JAMBOTI, KHANAPURA TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001.

¶39

THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, (A AND E), KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVT. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶42

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE R/W ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND MODIFY THE ORDER IN WP NO.108640/2017 DATED 10.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PAY INTEREST TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE SERVICE BENEFITS AND THE CLAIM OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER FOR THE SALARIES DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2010- AND SEPTEMBER 2012 WITHIN A STIPULATED TIME WITH THE INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

THESE REVIEW PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

¶48

This is another classic example of a case where the authorities in their attempt to frustrate the orders passed by this Court have overreached their bounds. This Court is constrained to express its deep sense of regret, particularly when after contest it had accepted the plea of a helpless petitioner No.1, who having attained the age of superannuation after rendering his services as a Headmaster of a School was merely asking his rightful entitlement of salaries and the pensionary benefits and the interest for the delayed payments thereof.

¶49

Petitioner No.1 has been knocking the doors of this Court on several occasions, over a period of fifteen years. In that, he had filed the petitions in W.P. Nos.108640 of 2017 and 108934 of 2017 seeking payment of interest at 12% per annum compounded

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

monthly on the amount of pension and pensionary benefits of ₹23,74,734/- for the delayed period of 30 months and 17 days i.e., from 01.10.2012 to 17.04.2015 and for a direction to the respondent-authorities to pay the salary due to him for the period from November-2010 to September-2012 amounting to ₹9,32,858/- with interest at 24% per annum.

¶53

This Court by order, dated 10.06.2024 after hearing petitioner No.1 and the contesting respondentState as well as the Institution, at paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 had passed the following order:

¶54

“11. Appointment of the petitioner in the fifth respondent - Institute and he working there till he attaining the age of superannuation is not denied. Though, the Administrator, who had issued an order of suspension, subsequent to the Managing Committee taking over the charge from him has revoked the said suspension order. The Managing Committee itself has recommended to the authorities that the suspension order, which was passed by the Administrator was neither delivered to the petitioner nor the same was given effect to. In other words, the so called suspension order has remained ineffective even though it was stated to have been passed by the Administrator. The petitioner cannot be found fault with, if the suspension order was not given effect to. And petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate entitlement of his salaries. It appears for

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

no fault of the petitioner, he was placed under suspension for he not reporting to the place to which he was transferred, and the very same institute has subsequently revoked the suspension order, specifically recommending to the authorities that the suspension order was never handed over to the petitioner. These circumstances lead to irresistible conclusion that the suspension order was nonest. In other words, the suspension order has not affected the continuation of service of the petitioner at the fifth respondent - institute, even as evidenced by the very own communication of the fifth respondent addressed to the authorities produced at Annexure-M in W.P. No.108934/2017.

¶58

12. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, this Court is of considered view that the petitions are deserve to be allowed in part. The same are allowed in part.

¶59

13. The respondents - authorities shall consider the payment of interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment of the service benefits as claimed in W.P. No.108640/2017 and shall also consider the claim of the petitioner for salaries during the period between November-2010 and September-2012, in accordance with law, at any rate, within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

¶60

Non-compliance of the aforesaid order,

¶61

constrained petitioner No.1 to prefer contempt petitions in C.C. Nos.100013 of 2025 and 100016 of 2025.

¶62

Twofold stand was taken by the respondentState to counter the allegation of contempt. Firstly, it is

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

contended that the petitioner was not entitled for the salary for the period between November-2010 and September-2012, as he purportedly did not work for the said period. Secondly, the order passed by this Court had merely directed the respondent-authorities without specific direction to any particular authority, who has to make the said payments and this had apparently led the official respondents and the management inter se to deny each one's liability.

¶66

In support of the first contention, apparently the orders dated 02.09.2024, 06.11.2024 and 02.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Director (Administration) were furnished. Taking note of the aforesaid two contentions urged by the respondent – authorities, the contempt proceedings were dropped reserving liberty to petitioner No.1 to avail such remedy as may be available. It is under these circumstances, these review petitions are filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeking indulgence of this Court.

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Learned counsel Shri F.V. Patil and

¶70

Shri Ramesh Misale appearing for petitioner Nos.1 and 2 submitted that in view of the technical objection raised by the respondent-authorities that the order passed in the writ petitions not specifically pointing out as to who has to make the payment, the order requires to be modified.

¶71

In response, Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, Principal Government Advocate appearing along with learned HCGP for the respondent-State furnishing a memo dated 22.07.2025 along with the photocopies of aforesaid three orders, would submit that this Court at paragraph No.13 of its order had directed the authorities to consider the payment of the salary and interest in accordance with law. Therefore, the authorities have passed the orders declining to pay the salary to the petitioner, since he had not reported to the post where he was transferred, and not having worked for the said period he was not entitled for the salary and such amount, if any, was to be paid by

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

petitioner No.2-Institution. Therefore, the said orders came to be passed in consideration of the direction issued by this Court at paragraph No.13. He submits that there is no fault on the part of the respondent-authorities, if they have not complied with the orders of this Court. He also adds that this aspect of the matter is taken note of in the contempt proceedings, while dropping the same.

¶75

Upon a query by this Court to the learned Principal Government Advocate, bringing to his attention the contents of paragraph Nos.4, 7, 9 and 11 of the order dated 10.06.2024, as to in the light of determination by this Court the issue with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner No.1 of his salaries for the said period and for the interest on delayed payment, was it still open for the respondent-authorities to have passed the orders as per document Nos.1 to 3 filed along with the memo?, he fairly, submits that if the order dated 10.06.2024 read in its entirety, there was no scope of passing such orders. However, he hastens to add that

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

mere reading of paragraph No.13 of the order dated 10.06.2024 would give an indication that the respondentauthorities had the liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. He further fairly submits that there appears to be a mistake on the part of the respondent-authorities in reading the said paragraph of the order dated 10.06.2024, resulting in passing of the orders produced along with the memo.

¶79

The aforesaid submission made by the learned Principal Government Advocate cannot be countenanced for more than one reason. Firstly, the order dated 10.06.2024 was passed by this Court taking into consideration the facts and the merits of the submissions made by the respective counsel, categorically holding that the petitioner No.1 cannot be held responsible for he not reporting to the place to which he was transferred and that he was entitled for the salaries for the period between November-2010 and September-2012, which cannot be denied. It is in the light of this specific finding

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

of this Court, directions at paragraph No.13 were given. Though this Court while issuing the said directions to the respondent-authorities had indeed mentioned that the same shall be considered “in accordance with law”, which cannot and ought not to have been construed to have reserved liberty to the respondent-authorities to reopen the case to find out, if petitioner No.1 was entitled for the salaries for the said period. The said direction was specifically for the payment of interest to the petitioner No.1 for the delayed payment of service benefits and for the salaries during November-2010 and September-2012 to be considered and paid in accordance with law and not to reopen and reconsider his entitlement, as sought to be contended. The authorities passing the subsequent orders as produced along with the memo purportedly under mistaken understanding of the orders as sought to be contended by the learned Principal Government Advocate cannot be the reason to deny the fruits of the order dated 10.06.2024.

¶83

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Secondly, the stand taken by the respondentauthorities in the contempt proceedings is that the order passed by this Court was not a specific as to whom the direction was issued. This, in the considered view of this Court apart from being reckless, is a deliberate attempt to avoid implementation of the orders of the Court. The array of the parties in the writ petitions gives no room for any confusion or misunderstanding. Generally, when the directions of this nature are issued to the authorities, that too after hearing the respective counsels on the contentious issues, it is understood that the concerned authorities would take necessary action in the matter, without subsequently disowning their responsibility on hyper technical grounds of “order not being specific or not being directed to a particular authority” . Such an objection can be raised only with a deliberate intention of frustrating the orders passed by this Court.

¶86

Necessary also to note that, the petitioner No.1 who is presently aged about 73 years, has been knocking

¶87

13 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

the doors of this Court for more than six occasions over fifteen years. This Court cannot be oblivious to the plight of a person like petitioner No.1, who retired as a Headmaster of a School to receive his rightful entitlement. He cannot be constrained, forced and compelled to approach the Courts repeatedly merely because of deliberate inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities, who despite having the providence of good legal counsel and advice, to come and say that they misunderstood the orders of this Court, while complying with the same. This is nothing but an attempt to delude and cause impediment in implementation of the orders passed by this Court.

¶91

Learned Principal Government Advocate vehemently contended that, while dropping the contempt proceedings, the contempt Court had reserved liberty to petitioner No.1 to avail such remedy as may be available under law and as such petitioner No.1 be directed to initiate separate proceedings challenging the orders

¶92

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

produced along with the memo. The said submission under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case cannot be acceded to. This is in view of the fact that when this Court after adverting to the facts, merits the submissions of the parties had categorically found that the petitioner No.1 being entitled for the salaries for the period between November-2010 and September-2012, it was not open for the respondent-authorities to have sat over the judgment and order of this Court and reverse the same by reading paragraph No.13 of the said order in isolation and giving their own reasons, particularly when the order passed by this Court has not been put to challenge by them and the same having attained finality.

¶95

Now, on a specific query by this Court to the learned Principal Government Advocate, who on enquiry with the Officers, who are present before this Court, submits that it is respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are liable to make the payment as directed.

¶96

15 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

In that view the matter, the following:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

(a) The review petitions are allowed.

¶102

(b) The orders in W.P. Nos.108640/2017 and 108934/2017, dated 10.06.2024, is modified.

¶103

(c) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay to petitioner No.1 the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the delayed payment of the service benefits as claimed in W.P. No.108640/2017.

¶104

(d) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay salaries payable to petitioner No.1 for the period between November-2010 to September2012 with interest at 12% p.a. as claimed in W.P. No.108934/2017.

¶105

(e) The aforesaid payments shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶106

(f) It is made clear that should there be any further delay, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall jointly pay ₹5,000/- per day as cost

¶107

16 -

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9073 RP No. 100072 of 2025 C/W RP No. 100075 of 2025

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

to the petitioner No.1 out of their personal account, until the petitioner No.1 is paid his dues as directed.

¶111

(g) In addition, they shall also personally pay cost of ₹1,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1 for having deliberately avoided the implementation of the orders by taking inconsistent and reckless stand and subjecting him to endless agony by compelling him to repeatedly approach this Court.

¶112

(h) In light of the disposal of the petitions, the pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed off.

¶113

(i) List these matters on 29.08.2025 to report compliance.

¶114

VNP / CT-ASC

¶115

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

¶116

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

Shivaji Gangaram Shinde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Gangaram Shinde v. the State of Karnataka

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. T Shashidhar S/O T. Rameshwar Rao Alias T Ramesh Vs Sri. U Mahdusudhan Reddy S/O Late U Thimma Reddy

Rachayya K Gurayyanavar Vs Shri. Siddharoodha

Shrishail S/O Parutappa Bhavi Since Deceased by Lrs Vs Shrishail Basalingappa Koti

Yallappa S/O Rangappa Bhutali Vs Smt. Kalasawaw/O Basavaraj Kori

Shivaji Gangaram Shinde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivaram Krishna Bhat, Havagudi Vs Smt Parvati W/O Prabhakar Raikar