The Karnataka High Court has charged three government officials with contempt of court for failing to comply with its order directing extension of pension benefits to the monthly rated labourers while following a decision by a coordinate bench in another case. 

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 bench also noted that the accused-officials had challenged its order dated April 28, 2025, which extended pensionary benefits to the complainants, and not the P. Junjappa vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Others judgement passed on March 17, 2025, based on which the April 28 order was passed.

The Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the P. Junjappa judgement, had extended the pensionary benefits to employees categorised as Monthly-Rated Labourers (MRLs), who fell under the non-pensionable contingent establishment. The bench observed that the benefits provided to similarly placed employees cannot be arbitrarily and selectively denied to the complainants in the case.

“The conduct of the accused in not challenging the main judgment in P. Junjappa and challenging the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in the Writ Petition No.18058/2023, contempt of which is alleged, is inexplicable,” the Court said.

It added, “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.”

Accordingly, the High Court charged the accused with contempt of court and directed the trial to begin in the case.

Background

The contempt proceedings arose from the non-compliance with the High Court order dated April 28, 2025. The writ court had allowed the petition—mutatis mutandis extending the relief granted in P. Junjappa vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Others—directing the authorities to extend pensionary benefits to the petitioners, compute and disburse arrears within three months, and ensure pensionary benefits are not denied arbitrarily.

Counsel for the accused argued that the State had pursued legal remedies, including filing an SLP and subsequently a review petition before the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed. It was contended that since the posts fell under monthly rated establishments and the extension of 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 rejected the accused's submissions and framed charges against them and listed the matter for trial.