The court found no grounds for contempt as the government complied with orders despite delays, emphasizing compliance assessment only.

ORDER :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

We have heard Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Nitesh Padiyal for the complainant and Sri Malhar Rao, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.3 on the issue of hearing before charge against respondent No.2.

2. This contempt petition is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act . The prayer sought in the petition reads as follows:

“i. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent/accused and order for taking action as deemed fit including punishing them in so far as disobedience of the order passed in WP.No.201810/2022 dated 18.07.2024 which is at Annexure-A and order for taking action as deemed fit including punishing them with imprisonment in the interest of justice.

ii. Issue any other direction as deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court.”

3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the complainant in the present contempt petition stated that he was appointed by the Recruitment Committee constituted in the year 1993, as Watchman against permanent vacancy and he was being paid only Rs.250/- and was being branded as temporary employee, but his services has not been regularized nor paid wages corresponding to permanent employee as that of similarly situated government employees and covered his name under Government grant. It is stated that he approached respondent No.1 by filing petition, but the same was not considered. Hence, the complainant approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.201961/2017.

4. The learned Single Judge by order dated 30.05.2018 allowed the writ petition filed by the complainant with a direction to dispose of the said petition pending before the authority. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has disposed of the said petition filed under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act , 1983 (for short ‘the Act’) on 15.10.2018, denying the prayer sought by the complainant. The Principal of the college where the complainant was working continued to extract the work from him continuously, without any kind of break and without paying the corresponding government scale or without sending the proposal to respondent No.1 for covering him under Government grant. Hence, again the complainant approached this Court in W.P.No.201810/2022 with a prayer to direct the respondents for regularization of his service from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1993 and cover him under government grant and pay all consequential benefits including the arrears of wages as per order dated 15.10.2018 passed by respondent No.1.

5. It is stated that after hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the complainant vide Annexure-A, directed respondent No.2 to consider the letter of respondent No.2 dated 12.06.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of said order.

6. It is also the contention of the complainant that he made several representations dated 26.08.2024, 29.07.2014 and 12.08.2014 requesting respondent Nos.2 and 3 to comply the order passed by the learned Single Judge and pay all the arrears of salary, pension etc., with all consequential benefits. The representations given by the complainant are produced as Annexures-B, C and D. But, inspite of submitting representations, the respondents have not considered the same and hence, approached this Court by filing this contempt petition.

7. The main contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the complainant is that inspite of specific order passed in earlier writ petition as well as in the order produced at Annexure-A, the respondents failed to comply the direction even though specific time of four weeks was given to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders. Hence, counsel wou