Orissa High Court
Ajit Ranjan Lenka vs Ashok Meena And Another on 10 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No. 2801 of 2021
Ajit Ranjan Lenka ..... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
Vs.
Ashok Meena and another ..... Opposite parties
Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
ORDER
10.03.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
08.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.
Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 24399 of
2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2020 with the
following observation and direction:-
"In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of
this Writ Petition directing the opposite parties to consider
the case of the petitioner and regularize his services
keeping in view the judgment in the case of Secretary State
of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006)
4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others v. M.L.
Kesari & others involving SLP (C) No. 15774/2006 and
also the resolution of the G.A. Department dated
17.09.2013, within a period of four months from the date of
communication of a copy of this order by the petitioner and
grant consequential service benefits as due admissible to
him"
4. Against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the state
preferred Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No. 7 of 2021, which was disposed
of vide order 05.02.2021 with the following observation and direction:-
"Considering the above facts, it is not disputed
that similar questions on principles of ORV Act which
were not followed earlier, series of writ petitions were
disposed of which were confirmed by the Apex Court in
SLP No.18642 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018 in the case of
State of Odisha & Anr. Versus Jatin Kumar Das which
arises out of Original Application No.2172(C) of 2015
and batch of cases. In the said Original Application, the
learned Tribunal has already dealt with the said issue
having not followed the Rules of the ORV Act at
paragraph-8 of the judgment dated 17.05.2017 and 75
Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal
wherein the following specific finding was given.
"the ORV Posts and Services Act 1975 has no
application to the posts to be filled up through 6
contract in terms of Section-3(d) of the said Act.
The respondents failed to produce any paper
indicating the amendment of Section.3 (d) of ORV
Act, 1975 so also they could not able to produce
the documents that there was any other statutory
and mandatory provision overriding section 3(d)
referred to above for application of the
reservation principle while issuing contractual
engagement/ appointment in favour of the
applicants during the year 2005."
In view of the above facts, all the writ petitions
were disposed of confirming the order of the Tribunal
and the said orders of the writ petitions are confirmed by
the apex Court in the Special Leave Petition on the same
issue. Rightly, the Court has directed the appellants-State
authorities to regularize the services of the Respondent-
petitioner in terms of the above facts and circumstances
narrated in the above paragraphs. We are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order dated 29.09.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.24399
of 2020. The writ application bearing W.P.(C) No. 9216
of 2020 which is pending on self same allegation for
regularization of service of the petitioners therein is also
disposed of.
However, the appellants are directed to consider
the case of the respondent for regularization of service
and grant consequential service benefits as due and
admissible to him 7 within a period of two months from
the date of communication of a copy of this order
keeping in view the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 of the
General Administration Department.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed."
5. Against the order passed in the Writ Appeal, the state preferred
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13378 of 2021, which was dismissed of
vide order dated 04.10.2021 with the following order:-
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the
following.
ORDER
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order. The Special leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
ending application also stands disposed of."
6. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge
has been made confirmed in the Writ Appeal by the Division Bench and
thereafter in the Special Leave to Appeal by the apex Court. Therefore,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the opposite
parties to consider the case of the petitioner and regularize his service in
terms of ratio decided in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and
others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of
Karnataka & others v. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP (C) No.
15774/2006 and also the resolution of the G.A. Department dated
17.09.2013 holds good. The same having not been complied with, the
petitioner filed this present contempt petition. However by way of
rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court the
order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Registrar, Sales Tax Tribunal
Cuttack, wherein the last two paragraphs reads as follows:-
"And whereas, after receipt of the orders of the
Hon'ble Court, the matter was also referred to G.A. & P.G.
Department which have also offered similar views. As such
there has been delay in implementation of the orders of the
Hon'ble Court due to inter-departmental consultation.
Keeping in view the above facts, the petitioner Sri
Ajit Ranjan Lenka, D.E.O (Stenography knowing) is not
entitled for regularization as per the conditions enshrined
in the GA Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and his
claim is therefore, rejected".
7. Effectively the Registrar, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack is
sitting as an Appellate Authority over the orders passed by this Court as
well as by the apex Court and reopening the matter rejecting the claim of
the petitioner, which has already been settled by this Court as well as by
the apex Court.
8. Thereby, prima facie, this Court is of the considered view that the
Registrar, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack has committed contempt of
this Court by passing such order on 23.03.2022.
9. Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate,
however, seeks some time to get instruction or file an affidavit under
what circumstances, the Registrar, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack
has passed the order dated 23.03.2022 denying the benefit of
regularization of the service of the petitioner.
10. Call this matter after one week.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. SAHOO)
Arun
JUDGE
