Karnataka High Court
Sri B S Guruswamy vs Ramachandra on 4 September, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, B M Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
C.C.C. NO.1654 OF 2018 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
SRI B. S. GURUSWAMY
S/O. SHIVABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.210/19, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 011.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI SUNDARESH H. C., ADV.)
AND:
RAMACHANDRA
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA HANDLOOM
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.1,
PRIYADARSHINI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
TANK BUND ROAD, HALSOOR,
BANGALORE-560 042.
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI B. S. MURALI, ADV.)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.47614/2014 DATED
14.03.2018 AND ETC.
2
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAGHVENDRA S.
CHAUHAN J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr. B. S. Murali, the learned counsel for the accused, submits that by order dated 30.08.2018, the order dated 14.03.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, has been duly complied with. According to the learned counsel, this Court had directed the Corporation to rectify the delay in the matter of granting second, third, and fourth time-bound promotion to the petitioner. The same has been rectified by the order dated 30.08.2018.
2. However, Mr. Sundaresh. H. C., the learned counsel for the complainant, submits that though the time- bound promotion has been rectified, the pay still needs to be fixed in accordance with the relevant rules. Therefore, the order dated 14.03.2018 has not been complied with in toto. Therefore, the contempt continues to be committed by the accused.
3
3. The position being taken by the learned counsel for the complainant is unjustified. For, this Court had merely directed the Corporation to rectify the delay in the matter of granting second, third, and fourth time-bound promotion. The same has been granted by the order dated 30.08.2018. However, obviously the pay fixation is yet to be done in accordance with the relevant rules. Despite the fact that there is no direction by this Court to fix the pay in accordance with the relevant rules within the stipulated period, it is hoped that the same shall be done by the accused within a reasonable time.
4. For the reasons stated above, the contempt petition no longer survives. Therefore, it is hereby dropped.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE VP