- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13488-DB CCC No. 145 of 2024 C/W WA No. 833 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 145 OF 2024 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2024 (S-RES) IN CCC No. 145/2024 BETWEEN: M. SHANTHARAJU, S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSING QUARTERS NO.1 SANMARGA 2ND STAGE, NEAR WATER TANK, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. VISHNUKUMAR.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13488-DB CCC No. 145 of 2024 C/W WA No. 833 of 2024 2. B. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VANIVILAS WATER WORKS, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU - 570 020. 3. ASAD-UR-REHMAN SHARIFF, COMMISSIONER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD MYSURU - 570 001. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M P., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3, SRI. S.R. KHAM RAZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.11581/2022 AT ANNEXURE-A. IN WA NO. 833/2024 BETWEEN: 1. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION NEW SAYYAJI ROAD, MYSURU, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MYSURU - 570 001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VANIVILAS WATER WORKS, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU - 570 020. ...APPELLANTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13488-DB CCC No. 145 of 2024 C/W WA No. 833 of 2024 (BY SRI. GEETHA DEVI M P., ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. M SHANTHRAJU, SON OF LATE MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT: HOUSING QUARTERS NO. 1, SANMARGA 2ND STAGE, NEAR WATER TANK, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 011. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHNUKUMAR K., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023 IN WP No-11581/2022 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND DISMISS THE SAID WP IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION AND APPEAL ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13488-DB CCC No. 145 of 2024 C/W WA No. 833 of 2024 2. We notice that a Contempt of Court Case has also been filed in CCC No.145/2024 alleging non-compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondent herein that is the writ petitioner was only a timescale employee of the Corporation and was not a regular employee at all. It is submitted that the timescale employees of the Corporation are not Employees as defined under the Karnataka City Corporation Employees' Condition of Service Rules, 1991 and that therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1963 are also not applicable to the respondent herein. 4. It is submitted that the learned Single Jude erred in having relied on the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, since there was no issue of the respondent herein being employed by a Contractor. It is submitted that direct contract or timescale employees of the Corporation would also not be entitled to the medical reimbursement as contended by the respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13488-DB CCC No. 145 of 2024 C/W WA No. 833 of 2024 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, on the other hand, contend that he has been in employment of the Mysuru City Corporation for 24 years and that he is entitled to be granted medical reimbursement on par with regular employees of the Corporation. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the provisions of the Karnataka City Corporation Employees' Conditions and Service Rules, 1991, and the Medical Reimbursement Rules applicable to the Corporation employees under the 1963 Rules would not be applicable to contract or timescale employees of the Corporation. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there would be no useful purpose served by referring the representation preferred by the writ petitioner to the Mysuru City Corporation. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that provisions with regard to medical reimbursement have to be made applicable to contract employees of the Corporation as well. If that be so, it is for the writ petitioner, that is, the respondent herein to raise such representations before the State Government and it is for the State Government to consider and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13488-DB CCC No. 145 of 2024 C/W WA No. 833 of 2024 take a policy decision as to whether such benefits are to be extended to the contract labourers under City Corporations or local bodies as well. 7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that without there being any provision making medical reimbursement applicable to time scale employees of the Corporation, the Corporation cannot take a decision to make such benefits available only to a single person. In the above view of the matter, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge cannot be justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. However, we proceed to hold that we have not considered the contentions raised by the Writ petitioner on merits and it is for the Writ petitioner to take up the matter with the State Government who shall consider the matter in accordance with the law. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13488-DB CCC No. 145 of 2024 C/W WA No. 833 of 2024 9. In view of the order passed in the Writ Appeal, the Contempt of Court Case does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is closed. 10. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2