Substantial compliance with court orders must be assessed, allowing for dismissal of contempt petitions if the key directives are met, even if not perfectly.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

1. The contempt petition is filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, complaining disobedience of order dated 10.02.2025, passed by this Court, in W.P.No.102145/2024 (S-RES), whereunder this Court passed the following order:

“i. Petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 28.09.2005 vide Annexure-H and the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 vide Annexure-N passed by the respondent No.2 are hereby quashed. iii. Mandamus issues to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners as is considered in the case of K.Dinesh Kumar supra strictly in consonance with law, within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Ordered accordingly.”

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Suresh Bhat for the complainant, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli for learned counsel Sri Murugesh V. Charati, for accused Nos.2 and 3 and learned Principal Government Advocate Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, for accused Nos.1 and 4.

3. The complainants had approached this Court questioning the order dated 31.12.2014 bringing them into the purview of Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 and also consequently seeking a declaration that the petitioners are deemed to have been regularised in their respective cadres as per order dated 17.12.2004 (Annexures-F and G, respectively, to the writ petition), from the date they have completed 10 years of service.

4. The learned single Judge of this Court placing reliance on the earlier decision in K. Dinesh Kumar vs. Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. in W.P. No. 56526/2016 disposed of on 15.02.2021 directed to consider the cases of the complainants. As the accused failed to comply the order of the learned Single Judge, the present contempt petition was filed.

5. On issuance of notice, the accused persons appeared and affidavit dated 15.10.2025 was filed stating that endorsement dated 13.05.2025 was issued by stating that there is compliance of the order passed by this Court. Subsequently additional compliance affidavit dated 23.10.2025 was also filed. Thereafter one more affidavit dated 05.11.2025, enclosing revised endorsement dated 05.11.2025 was filed. The Court taking note of all those affidavits and endorsements, was of the opinion that the endorsements issued are not in consonance with the direction issued by the learned single Judge dated 10.02.2025 in W.P.No.102145/2024 and posted the complaint for hearing before charge.

6. Today, affidavit of Sri Vijay Mohan Raj V., IFS, Managing Director of KFDCL, along with revised endorsement dated 27.11.2025 is filed.

7. The Senior Counsel appearing for accused Nos.2 and 3 would submit that, in the endorsement, the authorities have made it clear that the complainants cannot claim on par with Dinesh Kumar case (supra), since the said Dinesh Kumar (supra) was appointed in the year 1988 as a temporary employee, whereas, the complainants were appointed in the year 1993 as daily wage employees. Further, he submits that, as on the date of proceedings to regularise daily wagers under proceedings dated 20.07.2000, the petitioners had not completed 10 years of service. The relevant portion of the endorsement reads as follows:

8. However, the contempt Court would not go into the correctness or otherwise of the endorsement. On going through the endorsement, we are of the view that the cases of the complainants are considered and the authorities have come to the conclusion that the complainants cannot claim parity with Dinesh Kumar (supra).

9. Learned counsel for the