High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Anjanappa Ballagare vs Sri Abdul Bari Nawab on 9 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Anjanappa Ballagare vs Sri Abdul Bari Nawab on 9 November, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna

ORDER

J.S.KHEI~IAR. C.-J. (Oral) :

The complainant/petitioner has apptoaeliedlll

Court under the provisions of ti1e»–Cont4ernpt’-of Courts

Act. 1971, on account of non–eom:pli’anee’ of-th.e”

passed by this Court on ofb’

WP No.5755/2004. V The ope’1’ative”-vportioln'”of”the order

passed by this Court being extracted

‘ hereunder;

” The respoii–den-ti;-~,s areudliireeted to reinstate the
petitioner {to the”‘–‘post held by him as on
1~2;’oa..2r303 “arid’l1.e”‘would'”be entitled to 30% of the
t1ael:veravg’es–~»._orwiarrears of salary upto the date of
such ._reinstaten1ent-.._ He would further be entitled
to count this for his service benefits.

pp Theirespondents are at liberty to hold a fresh
‘en-quiiry on thealleged charges brought against the

petitioner, if it is so warranted.”

not a matter of dispute, that

l”=-<.___"-»oomplai.nant/ petitioner has been reinstated into service,

pldieonsequent upon passing of the order dated

_l__8§.O8.2009. It is also not a matter of dispute, that

* V arrears of

salary have been paid to the

complainant/petitioner. The only submission of the

learned counsel for the eomplainant/ petitioner is, that

3

the arrears of salary have not been Correctly calculated
and the wages now being paid to him are not invternzs of

his entitlement.

3. Insofanas the submission-TzadVanr:e’d the

learned counsel for the ‘.(;om}5iaina.nt;’petiti.Q1jier is,”

concerned, as has been * ‘foregoing
paragraph, once the has been
reinstated into iaaid wages, we
are has been
duly “th.evVvVg:rievance raised by the
petitior1_er,._ ‘remedy in accordance with
law. ‘ it t V V it

of the above, the instant contempt

petition V ‘caiisf for no interference and the same is

* V accordinglyh dismissed.

Sd;/..

Chief Justice

Sd/-97′
Judge

rnV*
Index: Y/ N