The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday framed contempt charges against three government officials for willfully disobeying its order to extend pensionary benefits to monthly rated labourers, rejecting their explanations that pending legal remedies and financial implications prevented compliance.

A Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju found “a willful disobedience of the order of the writ court” and charged the accused under Section 12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the Special Leave Petition and review petition filed against the order, leading to its finality.

Willful Disobedience Found in Pension Benefits Case

The contempt proceedings arose from the non-compliance with the High Court order dated April 28, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No.18058/2023. The writ court had allowed the petition by mutatis mutandis extending the relief granted in P. Junjappa v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Others, directing the authorities to: extend pensionary benefits to the petitioners in the same manner as other similarly situated employees, compute and disburse arrears within three months, and ensure no further arbitrary denial of pensionary benefits. A compliance report was also required.

The accused officials—Manoj Kumar, Dr. V. Karikalan, and Ganapathi K—were present in court when the Division Bench framed the charges. A fourth accused, Meenakshi Negi, was exempted from personal appearance for the day and will be heard on framing of charge on October 1, 2026.

Officials’ Defense of Pending Legal Remedies Rejected

Counsel for the accused argued that the State had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the April 28 order, which was dismissed on April 8, 2026. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed on September 16, 2026. They contended that since the posts were created under monthly rated establishments and extending pensionary benefits carried financial implications for the State Exchequer, prior concurrence from the Finance Department was mandatory and guidance was actively being sought.

The court, however, found the conduct of the accused “inexplicable” for challenging the April 28 order but not the main judgment in P. Junjappa, on which the order was based. “We are afraid that no credence can be given by this Court to such submission advanced, as the dismissal of the case by the Supreme Court in the S.L.P., has led to the order passed in the writ court attaining finality,” the Bench observed.

Regarding accused No.4 Ganapathi K, who argued that he was transferred to Shivamogga Working Plan Division on December 31, 2025, and therefore could not be made liable, the court noted that the order was communicated on May 8 and May 15, 2025, and his inaction during the earlier period was not absolved.

Charges Framed Under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act

The court proceeded to frame charges against the three accused present. The charge stated: “You, Manoj Kumar, have willfully disobeyed the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.18058/2023 and thereby committed contempt of this Court under Section 12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.” Identical charges were framed against Dr. V. Karikalan and Ganapathi K.

Each accused was asked whether he had heard and understood the charge and whether he pleaded guilty. All three replied “No,” leading the court to direct the trial to begin.

Trial Scheduled for November 2026

The court listed the matter on November 16, 2026, for trial and directed the parties to file their affidavits by way of evidence before the next date. The contempt case stems from a broader dispute over pensionary benefits for monthly rated labourers working under the Karnataka Forest Department, who were historically denied pension despite being similarly placed to permanent employees.

The P. Junjappa judgment, which formed the basis of the April 28 order, had extended pension benefits to employees categorised as Monthly-Rated Labourers (MRLs) under the non-pensionable contingent establishment. The coordinate bench had observed that benefits provided to similarly placed employees cannot be arbitrarily and selectively denied.

With the Supreme Court dismissing both the SLP and review petition, the April 28 order stands final and binding, leaving the accused officials with no further legal recourse. The contempt trial will now proceed to determine whether their non-compliance indeed constituted willful disobedience warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The matter will next be heard on October 1, 2026 for accused No.2 Meenakshi Negi on framing of charge, and on November 16, 2026 for the trial against the other three accused.