AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shylendra Kumar, J.—Observations made while disposing of a writ petition and a wishful expression while passing orders more with sympathy with an intention that some good may come out of the development in favour of persons who approach the Court for relief, cannot be equated to a specific direction or a writ of mandamus. A violation of such expressions cannot give raise to a cause of action under contempt jurisdiction. In the present contempt petition, complainants are persons who were petitioners before this Court in W.P. No. 20037-50/2010 and who had approached this Court complaining their employer Sports Authority of Karnataka said to be a society formulated by Government of Karnataka and therefore equated on par with the State had unilaterally reduced the salary/emoluments that were being paid to the petitioners who were being engaged as daily wagers from Rs. 17,000/- to Rs. 14,000/- in terms of resolution passed on 19.06.2010 by the Government of Karnataka.
The learned single judge of this Court quashed both the government orders and the resolution passed by the Sports Authority of Karnataka and disposed of the writ petition by the following order:
For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 19.06.2010 is set aside and so also the consequential order dated 25.06.2010 and the 4th respondent shall be heard in the matter of fixation of the consolidated pay and 4th respondent also shall give opportunity to the petitioners to have their say in the matter and thereafterwards, the Government is at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, writ petitions stand disposed of.
Petitioners are now before this Court complaining this part of the order is not yet given effect for either restoring the salary as earlier or for several benefits to be extended and therefore, action should be taken.
Appearing on behalf of the complainants, learned counsel Sri. B.B. Bajentri submits that the accused persons though have filed a review petition before the learned single judge seeking for review of the order, it does not absolve them, for the disregard or disobedience of the Court directions and therefore, notice may be issued to them calling upon them to respond for their inaction and disobedience to Court orders/direction.
While it may be true that this Court had quashed not only the Government Order dated 19.06.2010 but also the resolution dated 25.06.2010, nevertheless neither quashing of the Government Order nor the resolution can in any way confer on the complainants/petitioners any benefits either for the regularisation of the service or for entitlement for salary as it is the very submission of Sri. B.B. Bajentri that complainants/petitioners were all daily wagers and were not on any tenure/regular appointment.
While it may be possible that the respondents/ accused in deference to Court order may become active and pass a orders, but we are not inclined to exercise the contempt jurisdiction in cases of this nature where no precise violation or disregard could be made out in respect of the Court order, more so in matters involving financial implications on the State Government and other persons wherein the State and the authority or both required to follow the procedures and requirement of law for making appointments in respect of which articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are attached.
We are of the clear opinion that calling upon the respondents/accused in such matters to respond in contempt jurisdiction is virtually either pressurizing or permitting the complainants to terrorize or even to coerce the accused persons into actions which may or may not be permitted in law and we do not permit the contempt jurisdiction of this Court being utilised for this purpose, where no clear violation of Court order could be made out. It is for this reason both these petitions are dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to work out remedies elsewhere in accordance with law.