7 1.3.2021 Heard Sri B.Barik vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 2993 Ori

                      CONTC NO.492 OF 2018
                                 1




7   1.3.2021              Heard Sri B.Barik, learned counsel for the
               Petitioner and Sri P.K.Mohanty, learned senior counsel
               appearing for the Contemnors.
                          In the first round of litigation, the Petitioner
               approached this Court for a direction for promotion of the
               Petitioner in filing W.P.(C) No.18506 of 2012, which was
               disposed of by judgment dated 2.5.2017, direction thereof is
               hereunder :-
                               "19.In the facts and circumstances of the
                   case delineated above, this Court is of the considered
                   view that applying the provisions of the ORV Act, the
                   Petitioner's case for promotion be considered in terms
                   of the extant promotion policy of opposite party no.3
                   or he may be extended with the benefit of promotion
                   from the date his junior has been promoted by
                   granting all consequential service benefits as due and
                   admissible to him in accordance with law.
                               20. The writ application is accordingly
                   allowed. No order as to cost"

                          In the meantime, the above direction of this
               Court not being complied with, the Petitioner moved CONTC
               No.1135/2017. It appears, the Contempt Petition was finally
               disposed of by order of this Court dated 18.10.2017 thereby
               observing as follows :-
                                "...It is stated that the judgment dated
                   2.5.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18506 of
                   2012 has not yet been complied with.
                                Let the authority comply with the same, if
                   not complied with in the meantime, within a period of
                   three months from the date of communication of this
                   order.
                                Contempt     proceeding is     accordingly
                   disposed of.
                                Requisites for communication of this order
m                  shall be filed within a week."

                          This order not being complied with, the Petitioner
                   2




is forced to file the present Contempt Petition. It appears, in
the second round of contempt, even though this Court
issued notice to the Contemnors on 29.3.2018 and for
pendency of the Contempt Petition for over two years, there
has been no compliance of the judgment of the Single Bench
of this Court.
           It is at this stage of the matter and in response to
filing of the Contempt for initiating a proceeding for violation
of this Court's judgment and punishing the Contemnors
appropriately, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the
Contemnors makes a statement that involving the judgment
passed by the Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.18506 of 2012 on 2.5.2017, Writ Appeal No.181 of 2017
though filed but however, there is no order of stay involving
the Single Bench judgment as of now.
           This Court finding no interim order operating in
the Writ Appeal being filed even after four years and the
judgment, this Court does not find any ground for non-
compliance of the direction involving the Writ Petition. Mere
filing of a Writ Appeal cannot allow the Contemnors to sit
over the judgment sought to be complied with. In any case
there is sufficient time passed after the disposal of the Writ
Petition and nothing prevented the Contemnors to work out
the direction of the Single Bench conditionally and subject to
outcome in the Writ Appeal.
           Further entering into the Cause Title involving
the present Contempt Petition, this Court finds, none of the
persons named therein, as Contemnors, are continuing
presently in the posts. Thus, it appears, the Contempt
                  3




Proceeding should also involve the new set of Contemnors,
who have come into hold the posts held by the Contemnors
here. This Court accordingly permits the Petitioner to bring
the subsequent violators on record by filing a Memo by day
after tomorrow (3.3.2021). On filing of the Memo brining
appropriate Contemnors, the persons already named in the
Contempt Petition and the persons those who will be
brought as new Contemnors for their holding such posts
presently and in replacement of the present Contemnors will
be issued with notice for personal appearance in this Court
on 22.3.2021 along with their show cause reply explaining
as to the reason for non-compliance of the judgment of the
Single Bench of this Court since 2017. Requisites for the
purpose will be filed along with fresh Cause Title of the
Contempt Petition after incorporating the new sets of
Contemnors by the end of this week.
           It is made clear that pendency of the Contempt
Petition shall not stand as a bar in complying with the
direction of the Single Bench of this Court, which will
however be subject to the ultimate outcome in the Writ
Appeal No.181 of 2017 if decided.
           Place this matter on 22.3.2021.



                              ..............................
                              Biswanath Rath, J.