Sri. J. Gangaiah and Others vs The State of Karnataka Department of Co-Operative Dr Ambedkar Veedhi Vidhana Soudha Bangalore 560001 and The Horticulture Produce Cooperative Marketing and Processing Society Ltd.

DV Shylendra Kumar. J.

This contempt petition is by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 18238-243/2011 which came to be disposed of by this Court as per the order dated 3.6.2011 reading as under:

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical circumstances a learned Single Judge, by order dtd. 10.12.2010 disposed of W.P.No. 38281/2010 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application for the petitioner therein, also an employee, on par with others in respect of whom similar benefits are extended, and that the same be extended in this case too.

Recording the submission, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Compliance within three months.

The prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition itself was to direct the second respondent to consider the representations dated 15.9.2006, 17.06.2007, 18.06.2008 & 08.09.2010 i.e., Annexures C, D, E and F. The learned single Judge disposed of these writ petitions as extracted above.

With great respect to the learned Single Judge, we are unable to understand the implication of this order more so, in exercising our contempt jurisdiction. However, the submission of Sri. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainants is that while the first respondent is only formal party and therefore, non-service of notice to the respondent may not impediment for the disposal of the contempt petition. Insofar as the grievance against the second respondent is concerned, submits that the accused is not extending the life benefits to the petitioners/respondent as had been extended in respect of some other similarly situated employees, but has approached in writ jurisdiction and obtained orders as in the nature as is passed by the learned single Judge in the present writ petitions.

Be that as it may, the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions is only to direct the second respondent to consider the representations etc., and while it does not disclose the statutory basis or so mentioned in the order passed by the learned single Judge, it appears an earlier order passed by this Court may pass a like direction or pass a similar order.

Even assuming that if it is so and even as submitted by Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainants, the grievance of the complainants appears to be that while certain benefits are extended to the complainants in terms of the order passed by this Court, all benefits as had been extended to others and not had been extended to them, therefore, the contempt petition.

What benefits are extended, what is sufficient, what is insufficient, what other benefits are extended to other similarly situated persons, and in what circumstances and no material is forthcoming in the contempt petition, we do not find any need or necessity for interference in contempt, such a libelous situation in this matter. Accordingly, these contempt petitions are dismissed.