Nilamani Mohapatra & Ors vs Aditya Prasad Padhi
2021 Latest Caselaw 8834 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           CONTC(CPC) No.124 of 2019


            Nilamani Mohapatra & Ors.             ....           Petitioners
                                                         Mr. M.K. Mishra,
                                                        Sr. Advocate being
                                              assisted by Mr. S. Senapati,
                                                                 Advocate
                                       -versus-
            Aditya Prasad Padhi, I.A.S & Ors.     ....     Opposite Parties
                                                       Mr. H.K. Panigrahi,
                                                                Advocate
                                                           Mr. B.K. Dash,
                                                                Advocate
                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                      ORDER

25.08.2021 Order No.

2. 1. The present petition is filed for initiating a contempt

proceeding against the Opposite Party-contemnors and passing an

order of punishment against the contemnors for their gross violation

of the order of the Tribunal dated 3.05.2018 passed in O.A.

No.726(c) of 2015 with a batch of O.As.

2. Drawing the attention of this Court to the development taken

place involving the issue involved herein and also the final part of

the order in the O.A. indicated hereinabove, Mr. Mishra, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contended

// 2 //

that in disposal of the Original Application involved herein, the

Tribunal taking reference of the resolution dated 22.09.2008 in the

final part of the order directed the State-Respondents to take policy

decision as one time measure for regularization of the services of the

applicants therein in terms of the resolution dated 22.09.2008, within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the

order. At this stage, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate also

drawing the attention of this Court to the background of the case

submitted that in passing such order the Tribunal kept in mind that

the list prepared for the contractual employees not only contained

the name of the Petitioners but also contained similarly situated

persons and juniors to the Petitioners who have been in the

meantime regularized. Drawing the attention of this Court to the

compliance affidavit filed by the contemnors Mr. Mishra, learned

Senior Advocate contended that when the Tribunal directed to

consider the case of the Petitioner in particular manner more

particularly in terms of the resolution dated 22.09.2008, the

contemnors had no option than to adopt the resolution at Annexure-

A/3 having come into force on 19.03.2018, which was not

considered in the finality of the proceeding involved herein. It is,

hereby, alleged that even though the services of the Petitioners have

// 3 //

been regularized in the meantime, but such regularization is not in

terms of the direction of the Tribunal. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior

Advocate thus contended that the contemnors are still in contempt

and attempting to mislead this Court by filing a false affidavit and

taking the plea that there is full compliance of the order of the

Tribunal, the Contemnors are attempting to overreach the order of

the Tribunal. In the process Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate

prayed for convicting the Contemnors for their deliberate violation

of the order of the Tribunal.

3. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-

contemnors, though did not dispute to the direction issued by the

Tribunal in disposal of the original application indicated

hereinabove, on the other hand, fairly submitted that the order of the

Tribunal since is not challenged, it has to be complied with in strict

sense therein and also on the other hand, giving reference to the

policy decision vide resolution dated 19.03.2018 submitted that the

State adopted such resolution by introducing a scheme for

absorption of persons indicated therein and accordingly contended

that the Petitioner has not only been regularized in the meantime, but

however, he has also been regularized in terms of the resolution

dated 19.03.2018. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Opposite

// 4 //

Party, therefore, claimed that there is no violation of the order of the

Tribunal. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party thus

submitted that there is already compliance of the direction of the

Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the contempt petition.

4. While adopting the submission made by Mr. Panigrahi,

learned counsel for some of the Opposite Parties, Mr. B.K. Dash,

learned counsel also claimed for dismissal of the contempt petition

for there is already compliance of the direction of the Tribunal.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court

finds, the Tribunal in disposal of the Original Application at the end

portion of the paragraph no.7 of the order has directed as follows:

"The matter of enhancing remuneration of the Junior Engineer engaged on contractual basis and their future absorption in regular establishment was also under active consideration of the Government for sometime past. After careful consideration, Government have been pleased to decide that-

(i) On completion of three years of uninterrupted contractual service and satisfactory performance, the monthly remuneration of the Junior Engineer will be enhanced to Rs.7,150 plus F.T.A. of Rs.350 per month (totaling to Rs.7,500 per month).

(ii) After satisfactory completion of six years of uninterrupted engagement, the J.E. appointed on contractual basis out of the panel sponsored by the Committee of the Chief Engineer maintained by the E.I.C. (Civil) may be considered for absorption in regular establishment/ post with regular scale of

// 5 //

pay attached to the post of Junior Engineer subject to availability of sanctioned vacant post in the cadre of the respective Department."

6. The Tribunal in paragraph Nos.8 & 9 of the same order, has

also directed as follows:

"8. The said resolution is applicable to Junior Engineers engaged on contractual basis and not persons like the applicants who have been appointed under the scheme. The resolution or guideline is available for regularization of the services of the applicants. Their service condition is governed as per the Government letter dtd.25.08.2006 and 30.07.2007. However, it appears that the applicants have served for more than six years, and persons whose names appear much below in the panel, have been regularized. Therefore, the grievance of applicants merits consideration.

9. Accordingly, the O.As. are disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to take a policy decision as a one time measure for regularization of the services of the applicant in terms of the resolution dtd.22.09.2008, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a period of a copy of this order."

7. On reading of the aforesaid paragraphs together with the

resolution dated 22.09.2008, it becomes clear that the Tribunal

keeping in mind that the juniors to the Petitioners even though are

not entitled to the benefit of the resolution dated 22.09.2008, have

been regularized and as a consequence gave a direction to the

Authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioners involved

// 6 //

herein by taking a policy decision as one time measure but in terms

of the resolution dated 22.09.2008. It thus becomes clear that the

Tribunal while directing for regularization of the Petitioners by

bringing a policy decision, also directed to regularize the Petitioners

in terms of the resolution dated 22.09.2008. Here looking to the

response of the Contemnors this Court finds, even though the

Petitioners have been regularized, but however, the Petitioners have

been regularized in terms of the resolution dated 19.03.2018 as

appears from the compliance affidavit. This Court already recorded

the submission of learned counsel for the Contemnors that there is

no challenge to the order/ judgment of the Tribunal involved herein

and thus observes, there is no escape to non-comply with the

direction of the Tribunal involved herein. From the manner of

regularization pleaded here, this Court, finds, the regularization of

the services of the Petitioners has not been made fully in terms of the

direction of the Tribunal and the contemnors are still in contempt.

For the claim of the contemnors through the compliance affidavit

that there is compliance of the direction of the Tribunal, this Court

clarifies that for the specific direction of the Tribunal, there was no

room for considering the case of the Petitioner in terms of the

resolution dated 19.03.2018, which was not even available at the

// 7 //

time of decision of the Tribunal, nor taken into account in the

dispute involved before the Tribunal.

8. Considering that the Petitioners have been regularized in the

meantime but not in terms of the direction of the Tribunal, to afford

one last opportunity to the contemnors-the present incumbents of the

concerned Department, to treat the Petitioners to have been

regularized strictly in terms of the direction of the Tribunal more

particularly in terms of the resolution dated 22.09.2008, this Court

directs the contemnors-the present incumbent to complete the entire

exercise involving preponing the regularization of the Petitioners

keeping in view the direction of the Tribunal taken note in paragraph

nos.5 & 6 hereinabove, within a period of 15 days hence and file full

compliance affidavit before the Registry of this Court within a

period of seven days thereafter.

9. With the aforesaid direction the contempt petition stands

disposed of.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

A.K. Jena