Laxman Kumar Murmu vs Asit Tripathy & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 10550 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                CONTC No.1680 of 2019

            Laxman Kumar Murmu                     ....              Petitioner
                                                               Mr.T. Mishra &
                                                               Mr. S.Senapati,
                                                                    Advocates
                                       -versus-
            Asit Tripathy & Ors.                   ....      Opposite Parties
                                                            Mr.H.K.Panigrahi,
                                                        Addl. Standing Counsel

                                                               Mr. B.K.Dash,
                                                            Advocate for OP.2

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                       ORDER

01.10.2021 Order No.

04. 1. This contempt application involves non-compliance of the direction of the Tribunal dated 03.05.2018 involving disposal of the O.A. No. 726(C) of 2015. This contempt petition was disposed of by the Tribunal along with a batch of cases but vide common judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitoner taking this Court to the order claimed to be complied with by the Department, attempted to satisfy his allegation.

3. In his opposition to the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for one of the Opposite Party No.1 objects entertainability of the contempt petition on three grounds. First ground of his challenge is, since the contempt petition is filed on 18.09.2019 involving non-compliance of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed in O.A.No.726(C) of 2015, the contempt

// 2 //

application is barred by the provision of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Advancing second ground, drawing the attention of this Court to the observation made by the Tribunal in paragraphs 7 & 8, Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel contended that once the Tribunal has come to observe that the resolution dated 22.09.2008 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal itself went wrong in finally directing to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the resolution dated 22.09.2008. The third ground of challenge as per Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for contemnor no.2 is that once the petitioner has accepted the order of regularization being passed in terms of the resolution dated 19.03.2018 and as there is no objection to such joining, the petitioner is, therefore, stopped from continuing with the contempt application. Mr. Dash, learned counsel thus resisted the entertainability of the contempt petition in absence of material evidence.

4. Mr.B.K.Dash, learned counsel for contesting on behalf of other contemnors adopted the submission of Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and prayed for rejection of the contempt petition.

5. On the first submission of Mr.Panigrahi, this Court finds, there remains no dispute that the judgment of the Tribunal involved herein was passed on 03.05.2018 with a direction to comply the direction therein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of such order. Brief discloses that copy of the order of the Tribunal was served on the contemnors on 30.05.2018. This Court, therefore, finds, three months time period expired on 29.08.2018. The contempt application having been filed on 28.08.2019, i.e. within one year of operation of the order, this Court

// 3 //

finds, the objection raised on the maintainability of the contempt petition remains unsustainable and the contempt petition does not suffer.

6. Now coming to the second limb of claim of Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for contemnor-opposite party no.1, this Court on reading of the direction of the Tribunal at paragraph nos.7, 8 & 9 finds, even though the Tribunal in the earlier part of the direction observed, the resolution dated 22.09.2008 has no application to the case of the petitioner, however in the circumstances described therein that the Juniors to the petitioner have already been regularized in terms of such very same resolution and therefore, has extended the benefit of resolution dated 22.09.2008 to the petitioner as one time measure. Further this being a contempt petition, the contemnors are deprived of raising such objection as it is beyond consideration in a contempt petition. Now coming to the third ground of challenge of Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for contemnor no.1, this Court also does not find any substance in the third contention of Mr.Panigrahi.

7. Coming back to consider the allegation of violation of the order of the Tribunal by the Contemnors, this Court in deciding similar issue in a contempt petition, vide CONTC (CPC) No.167 of 2019 has already come to hold that there is no complete compliance of the direction of the Tribunal dated 03.05.2018 and accordingly, as a matter of last opportunity provided fifteen days time to the contemnors and/or the present incumbents to give complete compliance of the direction of the Tribunal by preponing the regularization of the petitoner therein and filing full compliance affidavit before the Registry of this Court within a period of seven

// 4 //

days. While disposing of this contempt petition, this Court since finds, there is no full compliance of the order of the Tribunal by the Contemnors, this Court as a matter of last opportunity provides fifteen days time to the Contemnors-the present incumbents to give complete effect to the direction of the Tribunal dated 03.05.2018 within a period of fifteen days hence and file a full compliance affidavit before the Registry of this Court within a period of seven days thereafter.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the contempt petition stands disposed of.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

U.K. Sahoo