Gitanjali Baral vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 7097 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              CONTC (CPC) No.294 of 2016

            Gitanjali Baral                          ....            Petitioner
                                      Ms. Gyanendra Chandra Swain, Advocate

                                       -versus-
            State of Odisha and others.              ....     Opposite Parties
                                   Mr.Sonak Mishra, Standing Counsel S & ME

                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                        ORDER

14.07.2021 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

2. This matter arises out of a batch disposal of original application by the State Administrative Tribunal appearing at Annexure-1 involving disposal of O.A.No.2476(C) of 2011 along with O.A.No.3251(C) of 2011 and several other applications together by the disposal of the proceeding on 28.09.2015. From the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, Mr.Sonak Mishra, it appears this common judgment of the Tribunal was challenged in several writ applications with the case heading the proceeding before the Division Bench, W.P.(C) No.23910 2017 which matter was finally disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 19.12.2018 which reads as follows:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

By way of these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Odisha

// 2 //

Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.3251(C) of 2011 and batch of cases.

It appears from paragraph-4 of the impugned order that the Tribunal disposed of the Original application relying upon an earlier Division Bench decision of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.2025 of 1996 relevant portion of which reads as follows:

"However, the last pay he was getting as Resource Teacher may be protected in the scale of Rs.950-1500/- taking recourse to Rule 74(d) of the Orissa Service Code provided his last pay was not higher than Rs.1500/- which is the maximum in that scale and in that case, he shall be entitled to get only Rs.1500/-. Orders in this regard be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

The said order was subsequently assailed before this Court and the same has been confirmed vide order dated 05.05.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.3441 of 2017. It is, however revealed that the State Government has not filed any reply/counter affidavit before the Tribunal. Thus, it will not be appropriate for us to entertain the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education Department as the same was never raised before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate for the State-petitioners to approach the Tribunal by filing a properly constituted review application.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that if the State-petitioners approach the Tribunal within a period of thirty days hence by filing a review application, the same be considered in accordance with law.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases of either party."

// 3 //

3. Taking this Court the order quoted herein, Sri Mishra,

learned Standing Counsel submitted that in consideration of the case

of the State though the Division Bench declined to express any

opinion on the claim of the State, the petitioners therein, but

however, in the disposal of the batch of cases directed if the State-

petitioner approaches the Tribunal within a period of 30 days hence

by filing review application, the same shall be considered in

accordance with law. Sri Mishra further submitted that for the

instruction of the opposite parties herein there has been filing of

review cases in some of the proceedings, some of which are in the

Board today by way of review petition filed bearing RVWPET

(RPC) No.05 of 2019 and 01 of 2019 respectively.

4. It is submitted that there has been also filing of review

application in other cases. For the filing of the review application,

however all review applications are yet to be entertained. Mr.Mishra

contended that for the pendency of such issue, the contempt

proceeding in the present form not maintainable and State-opposite

parties should be provided opportunity to have their claim in the

review petition adjudicated.

// 4 //

5. Sri Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

all the cases submits that even though there has been filing of review

cases in some of the proceeding, but it is only in the filing stage.

Therefore, a contention is raised by Mr.Swain that in fact there is no

impediment in working out the direction involved herein.

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

finds admittedly for the permission of the Division Bench in disposal

of W.P.(C) No.23910 of 2017 and other batch of cases review

petitions have already been filed. For example, this Court finds

pendency of Review Petition Nos.1 and 5 of 2019 in the Contempt

(CPC) Proceeding No.294 of 2016 and Contempt (CPC) No.249 of

2016. Perusal of the contempt proceedings, this court finds that

review proceeding filed before the Tribunal have also been

transferred to this Court and accordingly registered as RVWPET

(RPC) Nos.5 of 2019 and 1 of 2019 respectively.

7. There is no dispute that these review applications involving

the disposal of batch of cases are only in filing stage. However,

taking into consideration, review petitions have been filed, the

review petitions need to be disposed of in accordance with law. The

State-opposite parties if so advised to take appropriate steps in the

// 5 //

ultimate disposal of the review petition pending before this Court

involving the above batch disposal by the learned Tribunal.

8. Be that as it may, for the recording this Court finds there is

no stay of the direction of the Tribunal as of now, at the same time,

pendency of review petitions cannot also be lost sight of and till

disposal of the review petitions indicated herein above, there is no

impediment in complying the order of the Tribunal. While

permitting to the State-opposite parties to take all possible steps for

disposal of the review petitions wherever pending at least within

two months from now, this Court disposes of the contempt petition

with direction to the contemnors provided there is change in the

judgment of the Tribunal involve herein after expiry of two months,

there shall be no impediment in complying the direction of the

Tribunal within 15 days thereafter. Considering the Tribunal

direction was given way back on 28.09.2015 and a valuable six

years time has already lapsed and the petitioner involved herein

cannot be made to suffer any further.

9. Contempt proceeding stands disposed of accordingly.

Registry is directed to place Review petition for disposal.

// 6 //

10. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation

are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out

of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with

certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in

the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th

March, 2020 as modified by Court's notice No.4798, dated 15th

April, 2021.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge