Orissa High Court
Braja Kishore Mohanty vs Reghu. G on 17 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No.1100 of 2021
Braja Kishore Mohanty ... Petitioner
Mr. M. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
Reghu. G, Director, Technical ... Opposite Parties
Education & Training, Odisha
and another
Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, ASC for OPNo.1
Mr. B.K. Dash, Advocatefor OPNo-2
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 17.11.2023
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is an application U/S.12 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the 8Act9) by the
petitioner praying to punish the contemnor-OPs for
not complying the order passed on 09.02.2016 by
this Court in W.P.(C) No.15725 of 2012.
3. Since the issue between the parties is
regarding non compliance of the order passed by this
Court, it is considered necessary to refer to the
operative part of the order passed in the aforesaid
writ which is quoted as under:
<In that view of the matter, since the
petitioner is continuing in his post and has
completed more than 20 years of service and
even though his appointment is irregular, he
should be regularized in service in view of the
judgment of the apex Court in Umadevi
(supra), M.L.Keshari (supra) and Kapila
Hingorani (supra) and judgment of this
Court in Binan Kumar Mohanty and
others (supra). Accordingly, the opposite
party nos.2 and 3 are directed to regularize
the service of the petitioner within a period of
three months from the date of passing of this
order.
With the aforesaid observation and direction
the writ petition is allowed=.
4. Heard Mr. Manas Pati, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel for the
OPNo.2 and Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, learned ASC for OP
No.1.
5. At the outset, Mr.B.K.Dash, learned counsel
for OP No.2 and Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, learned ASC
apprises this Court about the compliance affidavit
filed by OPs along with the copy of order passed by
OP No.2 vide Annexure-A/1, but Mr. Pati, however,
claims that the order of this Court has not been fully
complied with since the petitioner claims for
regularization of service with effect from 28.09.1995,
but Annexure-A/1 discloses about appointment of the
petitioner as Watchman in State Council for Technical
Education and Vocational Training, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar with effect from 20.08.2022.
6. Addressing the contention of the petitioner,
the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition
is extracted below:
xx xx xx <why the rejection order at
Annexure-12 shall not be quashed and the
petitioner's service should regularized at
par with his counterparts with all service
benefits=.
(emphasis supplied to bold letters)
7. As noticed above, quite understandably, it is
learnt that the petitioner has not prayed for
regularization of service with effect from any date as
per the prayer clause of the writ, but this Court vide
an order has directed OPNos.2 and 3 (contemnors
herein) to regularize the service of the petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of
passing of the order without stating the regularization
to take effect from any date. It, therefore, very clear
that neither the petitioner has prayed for
regularization of service of the petitioner with effect
from any date nor has any order been passed to
regularize the service of the petitioner with effect
from any date and, therefore, on going through the
compliance affidavit together with the document
under Annexure-A/1, it cannot be said that the order
passed by this Court has not been complied.
8. In this regard, law has already been well
settled by the Apex Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat
Duggar and others, (1996) 6 SCC 291 wherein it
has been held by the Apex Court that once there is
an order passed by the Government on the basis
of directions issued by the Court, there arises a
fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an
appropriate forum. It is, thus, very clear that after
issuance of Annexure-A/1 by the competent authority
appointing the petitioner in the establishment, it may
not be said that the order of this Court has been
willfully violated. Even otherwise, in this situation, if
the petitioner considers that the order of this Court
has not been complied with, he may have a fresh
cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate
forum, but result of such grievance or existence of
fresh cause of action are subject to fresh legal
scrutiny.
9. In the result, the order passed by this Court
appears to having already complied with, the present
contempt application merits no consideration and
accordingly stands dismissed on contest, but in the
circumstance, there is no order as to costs.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S.Sasmal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 18-Nov-2023 16:25:19
