Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 969 (KAR)

Rajendra v. Dileesh Sasi, Ias

2022-07-27

C.M.POONACHA, H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsels from both side present. Heard both side in the matter. 2. The contention of the petitioner was that his representations dated 22.03.2017, 23.02.2018 and 25.06.2018 were not considered by the respondents. It was the contention of the petitioner in his Writ Petition No.204842/2018 (S-RES) that though he was operating as a Pump Operator with the second respondent - Gram Panchayat, his salary has remained unpaid to him for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. After hearing both side, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said writ petition vide his order dated 10.09.2020, while observing that the respondents should consider the subject representations of the petitioner within a period of four weeks in accordance with law and to inform him the result of such consideration within next two weeks, disposed of the said writ petition. Contending that the said direction given to the respondents in W.P.No.204842/2018 dated 10.09.2020 was not complied, the petitioner has preferred this contempt petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that though an amount of  Rs. 467/- was attempted to be tendered to him by making a submission and representation in that regard has been recorded in the order sheet dated 11.07.2022, this Court did not accept the said representation and observed that it is not a due compliance of the direction given in the writ petition, as such, it was for the respondents to consider his representations. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the respondent No.2 has filed a sworn affidavit which gives the details of consideration of the representations of the petitioner dated 22.03.2017, 23.02.2018 and 25.06.2018 and mentions that as per the date of birth of the petitioner, as could be noticed in the Aadhar Card which was submitted to them, he has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2014, however, without disclosing the same to the second respondent, he continued to receive the wages till November, 2015. By giving further reasons, the second respondent has sworn that they are due to pay only a sum of  Rs. 467/-. The first respondent has endorsed the said view of second respondent vide his letter dated 26.05.2022/07.06.2022 and has stated to the petitioner that since he has long back being retired, the question of paying him the wages for the claimed period from 2015-16 and 2016-17 does not arise. 467/-. The first respondent has endorsed the said view of second respondent vide his letter dated 26.05.2022/07.06.2022 and has stated to the petitioner that since he has long back being retired, the question of paying him the wages for the claimed period from 2015-16 and 2016-17 does not arise. 5. However, the said aspect of a categorical response in the form of denial to meet the demands made by the petitioner was not brought to the notice of this Court on 11.07.2022. The Court was given the knowledge that the respondent has tendered a cheque of  Rs. 467/- to the petitioner as arrears, as such, it directed the complainant to produce any document available with him in support of his claim for payment of withheld salary, so that suitable action can be taken based on such document. With these it was observed that it does not amount to full compliance. However, by a detailed consideration of the annexures to the affidavit dated 11.07.2022, it is clear that the second respondent by producing the annexures which are in the form of response made by the present respondent Nos.2 and 1 to the representations of the petitioner which are dated 22.03.2017, 23.02.2018 and 25.06.2018 has clearly stated that the records maintained by them shows that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2014, as such, except the sum of  Rs. 467/-, the entire arrears have already been paid to him and that there is no necessity for the respondents to pay any further wages. That being a consideration of the representations of the petitioner dated 22.03.2017, 23.02.2018 and 25.06.2018 by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the said order of respondent Nos.1 and 2 which was communicated to the petitioner also gives the reason for coming to such conclusion, without making any observation regarding the acceptance of the reasons shown therein, suffice it to say that the representations of the petitioner dated 22.03.2017, 23.02.2018 and 25.06.2018 which was the subject matter of the writ petition, has been stood considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Needless to say that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the reasoning given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for rejection of his representations for the alleged arrears of wages for the period of 2015-16 and 2016-17, he has got appropriate remedy under law, as such, the contempt won't survive. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.