Orissa High Court
CONTC/4500/2020 on 19 January, 2021
CONTC No.4500 of 2020
I.A. No.285 of 2020
3. 19.01.2021 This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Miss D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for
petitioner.
As it appears, in the first attempt a Writ Petition was
moved to this Court by W.P.(C) No.21756 of 2015, which
appears to have been disposed of with the following
direction :
"6. After hearing the learned counsel for the
respective parties and on perusal of the records,
there is no gainsaying of the fact that the
petitioner has rendered services for pretty long
period and in view of the decision in the cases of
Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others (supra),
Uma Devi and others (supra) and in the case of
State of Jharkhand and others v. Kamal
Prasad and others : (2014) 7 SCC 223, the
case of the petitioner requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, the impugned order under
Annexure-6 to the writ application being not
legally sustainable in view of the dictum of the
Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), will have no effect,
so far as regularization of service of the
petitioner is concerned.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly
disposed of with direction to the opposite
parties, more particularly opposite party nos.1
and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner
afresh for regularization of service of the
petitioner in view of the judgments cited supra
within a period of four months and the decision
taken thereof be communicated to the petitioner
within the aforesaid period."
In the meantime, for the direction of this Court in
disposal of the above Writ Petition, having not been worked-
out, petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.4500 of 2020
which matter was disposed of on 21.10.2020 with the
following direction:
"This Contempt Petition is filed alleging
violation of this Court's order dated 05.02.2020
passed in W.P.(C) No.21756 of 2015.
2
Considering the submissions made and as
this Court finds, no purpose will be served in
issuing notice in such matter, the Contempt
Petition stands disposed of with a direction to
the O.P(s) to work out the direction of this Court
issued in W.P.(C) No.21756 of 2015 on
05.02.2020, if not worked out in the meantime,
within a period of fifteen days from the date of
service of a copy of this order by the petitioner.
Failure of compliance of this Court's direction, a
suo motu contempt proceeding will be initiated
against the O.P(s)."
For the direction contained in the order dated
21.10.2020 to initiate a suo motu contempt proceeding in
the event of failure in compliance of this Court direction,
petitioner filed this I.A. No.285 of 2020 enclosing therein the
final outcome by the authority in process of considering the
case of the petitioner for regularization of his services
pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C) No.21756 of 2015.
Referring to the manner of decision Miss Mohapatra,
learned counsel for petitioner contended that for the
direction therein, even assuming that there was a direction
in disposal of the Writ Petition for considering the case of
Ayas
the petitioner, but for the discussions and reference made
therein, there was no possibility of passing the order vide
Annexure-1 and it was the duty of the competent authority
either to allow or to reject the application of petitioner.
Attempting to demonstrate that there is an order vide
Annexure-1 to the I.A. in contravention with the direction of
this Court in disposal of the W.P.(C) No.21756 of 2015 Miss
Mohapatra, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that for
the observation made in disposal of the CONTC No.4500 of
2020 on 21.10.2020, there lies initiation of a suo motu
contempt proceeding.
Considering the submission made by Miss
3
Mohapatra, learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of
the direction given in W.P.(C) No.21756 of 2015, this Court
finds, no doubt there was direction for consideration of the
case of the petitioner for regularization of his services, but
however, taking into account the decisions referred to
therein. Keeping the nature of direction therein in view and
on reading through the order vide Annexure-1, this Court
finds, petitioner may be justified in saying that there is
wrong application of the judgment referred to therein by the
competent authority. In this situation this Court is of the
opinion that in the event petitioner is still aggrieved by the
order vide Annexure-1 appended to the I.A. No.285 of 2020
and since a decision is already taken; may be rightly or
wrongly, no further contempt proceeding will lie. It is, on the
other hand, petitioner, if so advised, may take up the issue
in a duly constituted Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in the process, this Court lefts the
issue open to be decided by the Writ Court.
With the aforesaid observation and direction the I.A.
stands disposed of.
As restrictions are continuing due to COVID-19,
petitioner(s) may utilize the soft copy of this order available
in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with
certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's
Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
..............................
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
