NASREEN FATHIMA D/O SYED ISSAKH AND OTHERS Vs. SRI PERUMAL I.R. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, DR. CHANDRASHEKAR V. THE DIRECTOR THE SPORTS AND YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT SPORTS AUTHORITY OF KARNAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OBSERVATIONS made while disposing of a writ petition and a wishful expression while passing orders more with sympathy with an intention that some good may come out of the development in favour of persons who approach the Court for relief, cannot be equated to a specific direction or a writ of mandamus. A violation of such expressions cannot give raise to a cause of action under contempt jurisdiction. In the present contempt petition, complainants are persons who were petitioners before this Court in W.P. No. 20037 -50/2010 and who had approached this Court complaining their employer Sports Authority of Karnataka said to be a society formulated by Government of Karnataka and therefore equated on par with the State had unilaterally reduced the salary/emoluments that were being paid to the petitioners who were being engaged as daily wagers from Rs. 17,000/ - to Rs. 14,000/ - in terms of resolution passed on 19.06.2010 by the Government of Karnataka.

(2.) THE learned single judge of this Court quashed both the government orders and the resolution passed by the Sports Authority of Karnataka and disposed of the writ petition by the following order: For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 19.06.2010 is set aside and so also the consequential order dated 25.06.2010 and the 4th respondent shall be heard in the matter of fixation of the consolidated pay and 4th respondent also shall give opportunity to the petitioners to have their say in the matter and thereafterwards, the Government is at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, writ petitions stand disposed of.

(3.) APPEARING on behalf of the complainants, learned counsel Sri. B.B. Bajentri submits that the accused persons though have filed a review petition before the learned single judge seeking for review of the order, it does not absolve them, for the disregard or disobedience of the Court directions and therefore, notice may be issued to them calling upon them to respond for their inaction and disobedience to Court orders/direction.