Kishor Ch. Pradhani vs Asit Kumar Tripathy
2023 Latest Caselaw 3650 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              CONTC No. 249 of 2019

Kishor Ch. Pradhani                 .....                                         Petitioner
                                                                  Mr. P.K. Rath, Advocate
                                    Vs.
Asit Kumar Tripathy, IAS &          .....                                  Opposite Parties
Others
                                                               Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA
            CORAM:
               DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                   MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
                                             ORDER

18.04.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

17.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. Alleging non compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 18.05.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 23299 of 2016, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present contempt petition.

4. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that against the order of this Court dated 18.05.2018 passed in W.P.(C) no. 23299 of 2016, the state opposite parties had approached the apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 13150 of 2019, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2019. After dismissal of the SLP, the order passed by this Court having been confirmed, therefore, the opposite parties are duty bound to comply the order of this Court, whereby it was directed to treat the order of removal from service dated 05.09.2011 passed by the Commandant, O.S.A.P., 3rd Battalion, Koraput as an order of compulsory retirement and pay all consequential service benefits to the petitioner. Mr. Rath, learned counsel further contended that in compliance to the said order,

the entire dues of the petitioner has been paid, save and except the leave encashment dues. Therefore, he confines the contempt application towards non-release of leave encashment dues and contended that to this extent, the order of this Court has not been complied with.

5. Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of leave encashment, therefore, there is no contempt lies against the opposite parties.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, as it appears the petitioner has confined his relief to the extent of non-payment of leave encashment in compliance to the order passed by this Court dated 18.05.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 23299 of 2016 and also admits that he has received all the benefits save and except the leave encashment dues, but the opposite parties have taken a positive stand that he is not entitled to get such benefit in view of the Finance Department order No. 2291/F dated 12.01.1983, wherein at clause-3 it has been stated that persons who are compulsory retired as a measure of punishment under the Orissa Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 will not be governed by these orders.

7. In view the above, once the petitioner has come within the purview of clause-3 of the aforesaid order, he is not entitled to get the benefit of leave encashment. Thus, there is no question of non-compliance of the order of this Court as alleged by the petitioner in this contempt petition.

8. The contempt proceeding is accordingly disposed of.

                                                  (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                       JUDGE


Arun                                                 (M.S. RAMAN)
                                                        JUDGE