Contempt charges over pension for monthly rated labourers now stand framed against three officials, each of whom told the Karnataka High Court “not guilty”; the trial is listed for November 16, 2026.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Having framed contempt charges against Manoj Kumar, V. Karikalan and Ganapathi K, the Karnataka High Court heard each of them plead not guilty to the allegation of wilfully disobeying its order of April 28, 2025 in Writ Petition No. 18058/2023, which directed that pensionary benefits be extended to the labourers concerned. The trial will now begin [Sri Mahabaleshwar and Another v. Sri Manoj Kumar and Others].
Justice Jayant Banerji, who authored the oral order of September 23, 2026, sat with Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju on the Division Bench. The charges are yet to be tested at trial, and no finding of guilt has been recorded.
Where the Bench saw disobedience
However on perusal of the order passed and the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is a willful disobedience of the order of the writ court in this case. It is not mentioned in any affidavit filed by the accused that the case of P. Junjappa, which has been relied upon by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order of 28.04.2025, has been challenged before the Supreme Court or any review petition filed before this Court. 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.
Ganapathi K had argued that he was transferred to the Shivamogga Working Plan Division on December 31, 2025 and so could not be held liable, and that he could not comply while the Special Leave Petition was pending. The Bench noted that the order was communicated on May 8, 2025 and May 15, 2025, so a December 2025 transfer did not absolve him of inaction in the period after the order.
Counsel again sought to argue the merits of the case decided by the Supreme Court, relying on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3). The Court said no credence could be given, because dismissal of the Special Leave Petition had given the writ court’s order finality.
ALSO READ: Rajasthan High Court Orders Withholding Salaries of IAS Officers Over Contempt Case
The April 2025 order and the accused’s answer
The order of April 28, 2025 rested on the judgment in P. Junjappa v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Others (Writ Petition No. 6238/2020 with Writ Petition No. 48123/2019, decided March 17, 2025), and extended the relief granted there to the petitioners mutatis mutandis. The respondents were told to extend pensionary benefits in the same manner as granted to similarly situated employees, to compute and disburse arrears within three months, to ensure no further arbitrary denial for similarly placed employees, and to file a compliance report.
Their counsel submitted that the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the order on April 8, 2026, and that a review petition was dismissed on September 16, 2026. It was stated that non-pensionable permanent posts had been created under the monthly rated establishments, and that extending pension and arrears has financial implications requiring prior concurrence of the Finance Department, with which the department was pursuing the matter. The accused denied wilful disobedience and tendered an unconditional apology.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rebukes Punjab Government for Failing to Implement 1996 Pension Scheme
Charges, pleas and the road to trial
A separate, identically worded charge was framed against each of the three accused present: that they wilfully disobeyed the order dated April 28, 2025 and so committed contempt of court under Section 12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Each said he had heard and understood the charge and pleaded not guilty. The Court directed the trial to begin, asked the parties to file affidavits by way of evidence before the next date, and listed the matter on November 16, 2026.
Meenakshi Negi, the second accused, was exempted from appearing on an application under Section 228 of the BNSS, as she had been called to a meeting in Delhi, and was told to be present on the next date for hearing on framing of charge. The Court listed the matter on October 1, 2026 for the limited purpose of hearing her on framing of charge.
What the order shows
With the Special Leave Petition and the review both dismissed, pleading financial implications and the need for Finance Department concurrence offered no answer to the writ court’s directions. The Bench also called inexplicable the decision not to challenge the main judgment in P. Junjappa while challenging only the follow-on order.
Framing of charges is not a finding of guilt. The accused have pleaded not guilty and the contempt trial will test the allegation of wilful disobedience.
Case Title: Sri Mahabaleshwar and Another v. Sri Manoj Kumar and Others [CCC No. 1148 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 23, 2026
Appearances: Counsel for the complainants and the accused are not named in the order