Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1288 (KAR)

N. A. SADASHIVA v. S. V. Ranganath

2013-11-08

PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR, X.BHAKTH AVATS ALA

body2013
Judgment : 1. This is a petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for disobeying the order dated 08.03.2013 made in W.A.No.3642/2012 and W.A.Nos.8533-8541/2012 on the file of the Division Bench of this Court. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the complainants are here-in-after referred to as "the petitioners" as mentioned in W.P.Nos.40419- 40428/2010. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the contempt petition may be stated as under: Complainants/petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.40419-40428/2010 on the file of this Court against the Chief Secretary (Accused No.1), the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments (in short "HRICE") (Accused No.2) and the Executive Officer of Sri. Srikanteshwaraswamy Temple, Nanjangud (Accused No. 3), for quashing the notice issued by the Commissioner of HRICE, dated 31.12.2008 at Annexure-A and to direct the respondent No.2 to pay salary and other benefits. They have pleaded that they were employed under the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institution Act, 1927 as indoor and outdoor temple servants for the purpose of supply of flowers, playing musical instruments, decoiating the temple /chariot, keeping the temple premises clean and to regulate the flow of devotees visiting the temple, on a meagre salary and there was no age limit to retire and not entitled for retiral benefits like Officials of Muzarai temple. It is also stated that after the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 came into force, Accused No.2, by his notice dated 3.1.2005, directed Accused No.3 not to pay salary and other benefits as per the 5th Pay Commission report and retire the petitioners on their attaining age of 60 years. The petitioners and other employees of Accused No.3- Temple challenged the notice of Accused No.2 in W.P. Nos.40419-40428/2010 (S-RES). After the Accused entered appearance in the Writ Petitions, learned Single Judge, by order dated 12.12.2011, allowed the writ petitions directing respondent No.3 (who is Accused No.3 herein) to pay salary of the petitioners in accordance with the Fifth Pay Commission notwithstanding the direction issued by Accused No. 2/Commissioner, subject co the petitioners furnishing security for the due re-payment of monies if they are found disentitled to the same on disposal of the appeal by the Apex Court. The petitioners questioned the correctness of order of the learned Single Judge made in WP Nos.40419-40428/2010 (S-Res) in W.A.No.3642/2012 and W.A.Nos.8533-8541/2012. The Division Bench by order dated 8.3.2013 set aside the condition namely in so far as the direction to furnish security and thus modified the impugned order dated 12.12.2011 in the Writ Petitions. It is alleged that the accused have disobeyed the order dated 8.3.2013 made in the above said Writ Appeals and pray for initiating contempt proceedings against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. 4. We have perused the order sheet in this Contempt Petition. This Civil Contempt Petition was filed on 13.08.2013. According to the roster, contempt petition was listed on 23.10.2013 before the Bench of Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath and Mr. Justice H.S. Kempanna. They adjourned the case to 25.10.2013, There is no order or direction by the division Bench to post the case before some other Bench. But on 24.10.2013, the Registry suo-motu moved the Hon'ble Chief Justice for assigning the Contempt Petition to some other Bench and thus Hon Tale Chief Justice by his special order dated 24.10,2013 ordered to post this matter before tins Bench. The Registry was directed to put up its report as to why the special order for posting the case before some other Bench was obtained. Accordingly, a report dated 5.11.2013 has been submitted. The reason assigned by the Registry is that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K L Manjunath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath have passed the order dated 8.3.2013 (alleged to be disobeyed by the Accused) and as per Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, Hon'ble Justice K L Manjunath who has passed the said order dated 8.3.2013 by heading the Division Bench, he is disabled to hear the Contempt Petition. 5. Smt.K.K. Thayamma, learned counsel appearing for the complainants submits that no impediment for the Division bench headed by Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath to hear the matter, though his lordship has passed the order dated 08.03.2013 heading the Division Bench. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the accused adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainants. 7. 5. Smt.K.K. Thayamma, learned counsel appearing for the complainants submits that no impediment for the Division bench headed by Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath to hear the matter, though his lordship has passed the order dated 08.03.2013 heading the Division Bench. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the accused adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainants. 7. According to Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, an appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a single judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court, under any law for the time being in force, shall lie to and be heard by a bench consisting of two other judges of the High Court. At this stage, it is useful to excerpt the relevant report of the Registry. It reads as under: "When any order passed by a learned Single Judge is challenged in the writ appeal, the same would be placed before the division bench of two Hon'ble Judges as per roster. In case, in the division bench, if one of the members of the bench happens to be the Hon'ble Judge who had passed the order in the writ petition, the appeal would be placed before another bench after obtaining special orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice." 8. Thus., the Registry justifies its action regarding taking a special order for posting the contempt petition before some other Bench. 9. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that the jurisdiction in contempt is independent jurisdiction of original nature (relied on High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vs. Raj Kishore and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1186 ] Hence, it would not fall within the scope of Section 4 of High Court of Karnataka Act, 1961. The power conferred under the Contempt of Courts Act is to uphold the majesty of law and the rule of law which is the foundation of democratic society. In the instant case, complainants are not challenging the order dated 8.3.2013 made in the Writ Appeals and on the other hand, the contention of the complainants is that order dated 8. 3.2013 has been disobeyed by the accused. Hence, there is no impediment for the Bench which has passed the order alleged to be disobeyed by the accused, to initiate contempt proceedings in accordance with the law. 3.2013 has been disobeyed by the accused. Hence, there is no impediment for the Bench which has passed the order alleged to be disobeyed by the accused, to initiate contempt proceedings in accordance with the law. As the Contempt Petition filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, cannot be equated with that of an Appeal filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, we hold that the procedure adopted by the Registry for taking special order for posting the Contempt Petition before some other Bench is not correct. The Registry is directed to note the same for future course of action. As the Hon'ble Chief Justice, by a special order, has assigned this matter to this Bench for disposal, we proceed to hear the learned advocates for the parties. 10. Smt. K.K. Thayamma, learned counsel appearing for the complainants submits that the Government have passed an order extending benefits of Fifth Pay Commission but the other employees are drawing more salary as per the Sixth Pay Commission report. She further submits that since the Division Bench has held that the complainants are entitled for salary on pat with other employees but the Accused have not complied with the same and therefore the Accused have committed disobedience of the order dated 8.3.2013. She submits that a direction may be issued to the accused to extend the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission report to the complainants. 11. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Accused submits that as per order dated 08.03.2013 made in the Writ Appeals, the Government has issued an order dated 24.10.2013 and thus complied with the order dated 08.03.2013 and the contempt proceedings may be dropped. 12. It is pertinent to note that Accused No.2 bjr his notice directed Accused No.3 not to extend Fifth Pay Commission report benefit to the complainants. Learned Single Judge quashed the notice of Accused No.2 and the Accused No.3 was directed 10 pay salary as per Fifth Pay Commission. If the case of the complainants is that other employees are drawing more salary than the present complainants on account of extending benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission report, it is for the complainants to make a representation to the concerned and seek redressal. If the case of the complainants is that other employees are drawing more salary than the present complainants on account of extending benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission report, it is for the complainants to make a representation to the concerned and seek redressal. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainants that again complainants will have to approach this Court and therefore direction may be issued to the accused to extend benefits of Sixth Pay Commission report, cannot be accepted and acted upon as in a contempt petition question of passing order or direction does not arise. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the accused have disobeyed the order of this Court or not. Since the Government have issued an order dated 24.10.2013 in pursuance of the order dated 8.3.2013 made in the Writ Appeals, there is no good ground to proceed with the case. The complaint is liable to be rejected as against accused Nos, 1 and 2 in limine on the ground that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench directed accused Nos. 1 and 2 to do anything. In other words, a direction was issued to accused No.3-Executive Officer to pay salary to the petitioners in accordance with Fifth Pay Commission and he has complied with the order. 13. In view of the above, we pass the following order. Contempt Petition filed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 is rejected in limine; whereas the Contempt Petition filed against accused No.3 is dropped. In view of the observations made with regard to obtaining special order for posting this matter, the Registry is directed to place this order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his kind perusal.