Y N Krishna Murthy v. Smt Zehara Naseem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 181 OF 2026 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:

Y.N.KRISHNA MURTHY S/O Y.C.NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 60, 11TH BLOCK, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. MOB: 9731061284 MAIL ID: kmurthy.ym@gmail.com

OLD ADDRESS

Y.N.KRISHNA MURTHY S/O SRI.NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.329, 2ND STAGE, 6TH BLOCK, 8TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. …COMPLAINANT (PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

SMT. ZEHARA NASEEM, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA SILK INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT/ PARTY IN PERSON, WHEREIN PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT DATED

12.12.2024 IN W.A.NO.347/2022 WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY AND REMAINS OPERATIVE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

This contempt petition is filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the accused for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated

12.12.2024, passed in Writ Appeal No.347/2022, which is stated to have attained finality and remains operative.

¶2Though admittedly, the complainant has received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) in lieu of the emoluments to the complainant, for the years he has spent out of service, the complainant contends that the period spent out of service is required to be considered as being on duty for the limited purpose of continuity of service and for pension, in terms of the direction passed by this Court in the writ appeal.

¶3Admittedly, the SLP bearing No.8351/2025, filed by the respondent in the writ appeal has been dismissed on 04.04.2025, at the admission stage. Thereafter, as is evident from perusal of Annexure-H filed by the complainant, the review petition came to be dismissed on 21.11.2025. The contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is noted by this Court at paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the order dated 21.11.2025, which reads as follows, "3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the service of the respondent in the

review petitioner's establishment was not pensionable and therefore, the said observation is unwarranted.

¶4Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that, it is clearly mentioned in the order that the period shall be considered as duty for the limited purpose of continuity of service and for pension. If the services are not pensionable, and the pension is only under the EPF Pension Scheme, then there is no consequence to the directions issued."

¶4This Court in the review petition had noted the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the service of the complainant in the review petitioner's establishment was not pensionable and has observed that if services are not pensionable, and the pension is only under the EPF Pension Scheme, then there is no consequence to the directions issued.

¶5The complainant would contend that on the dismissal of the review petition and the SLP filed by the accused before the Supreme Court being dismissed, the judgment dated 12.12.2024, in the writ appeal attained finality and therefore, it is the judgment passed in the writ appeal that has to be complied with and that judgment and order is being sought to be diluted by the accused,

with reference to the pension payable under the EPF Pension Scheme.

¶6It is further stated that a stand has been taken by the accused that there was no deduction from the salary towards the complainant's contribution to the EPF Pension Scheme and therefore, there would hardly be any pension payable to the complainant.

¶7Be that as it may, in view of the observation made by the Court while dismissing the review petition, we are of the opinion that wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court is not reflected. Admittedly, the complainant has not challenged the order in the review petition or sought any clarification of the order in the review petition dated 21.11.2025. Under the circumstances, we cannot but consign this contempt petition. It is accordingly, consigned.

¶8However, it is provided that in case the Complainant is able to get any order in his favour, it would be open for him to move an application for revival of the instant contempt case.

Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18