Orissa High Court
Abinash Santra Patro vs G. Mathi Vathanan on 1 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC. No.2610 of 2023
Abinash Santra Patro .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mallick, Advocate
-versus-
G. Mathi Vathanan, IAS & .... Opposite
others Parties/Contemners
Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, AGA
(fo
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 01.09.2023
7. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Learned Counsel for the Parties are present.
3. Mr. Mallick, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
draws attention of this Court to Order dated 19.11.2019
passed in W.P.(C) No.21202 of 2016, relevant portion of
which is extracted below:
"In that view of the matter, since the petitioner
is continuing against a sanctioned post and
completed 25 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) and M.L.
Keshari (supra).
It is of relevance to note that in a similar
case, in respect of Angul Municipality, this
Court vide order dated 27.11.2014 in W.P.(C)
No.26860 of 2013 directed the opposite parties
to regularize the services of the petitioner
therein in view of the judgments of the apex
Court in Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Keshari
(supra). Against the said order dated
27.11.2014 the State of Odisha, as well as
Angul Municipality preferred W.A. No.407 of
2015 which was dismissed on 19.01.2016.
Against the order dated 19.01.2016 passed in
W.A. No.407 of 2015, the State as well as Angul
Municipality filed S.L.P. before the apex Court
and by a common order dated 13.05.2016, the
S.L.P. was dismissed. Consequently, the State
authorities issued office order dated 06.06.2016
for regularizing the petitioner in the said writ
application. Furthermore, in W.P.(C) No.10100
of 2010 filed by Dhruba Charan Nayak of
Paradeep Municipality this Court passed similar
order on 07.07.2017 and pursuant thereto the
benefit has already been extended to the
petitioner therein.
In view of such position, the opposite
parties are directed to regularize the service
of the petitioner and grant all consequential
benefits as due and admissible to him in
accordance with law within a period of three
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order."
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. He further draws attention of this Court to letter
dated 30.05.2023 of the Under Secretary to Government,
addressed to the Executive Officer, Jeypore Municipality
regarding absorption of the present Petitioner, which is
appended to the Compliance Affidavit as Annexure-A/1
and submits, despite a clear direction given by the
coordinate Bench to regularize the services of the
Petitioner in terms of the judgment of the apex Court, it
has been communicated to the Executive Officer, Jeypore
Municipality to absorb the Petitioner in the work charged
establishment, though the Petitioner is working as an
Amin for more than 25 years against a sanctioned post,
such communication made by the Under Secretary to
Government dated 30.05.2023 is contemptuous, being
contrary to the direction given by the coordinate Bench
as detailed above.
5. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Mallick relies
on the judgment of the apex Court reported in (2018) 9
SCC 469 (Food Corporation of India and others vs.
West Bengal Food Corporation of India Workmen's
Union), so also judgment reported in (2007) 7 SCC 689
(Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C.
Muddaiah).
6. He relies on Paragraph 5 of the judgment in Food
Corporation of India (supra), which is extracted below:
"5. The operation of the judgment was stayed
by this Court on 12.11.2007 as to how the
respondents have not been able to get the
benefits so far. We find that when once the
order passed by the Single Judge in appeal
dated 8-3-2001 has attained finality it was
required to be complied with in pith and
substance. Thus the order passed by the Single
Judge in the contempt proceedings could not be
said to be in accordance with law. The Division
Bench was thus right in directing the
compliance with the order dated 8-3-2001."
(Emphasis Supplied)
Similarly, Mr. Mallick relies on Paragraph 32 of
the judgment in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing
Board (supra), which is extracted below:
"32. We are of the considered opinion that
once a direction is issued by a competent
court, it has to be obeyed and implemented
without any reservation. If an order passed
by a court of law is not complied with or is
ignored, there will be an end of the rule of
law. If a party against whom such order is
made has grievance, the only remedy available
to him is to challenge the order by taking
appropriate proceedings known to law. But it
cannot be made ineffective by not complying
with the directions on a specious plea that
no such directions could have been issued by
the court. In our judgment, upholding of such
argument would result in chaos and confusion
and would seriously affect and impair
administration of justice. The argument of the
Board, therefore, has no force and must be
rejected."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the Contemners
submits, the said Order passed by the coordinate
Bench has already been complied with.
8. However, from the submissions recorded above,
contents of the letter dated 30.05.2023 of the Under
Secretary to Government, so also the averments made
in Paragraph-2 of the Compliance Affidavit filed by the
Opposite Party No.1, this Court is prima facie satisfied
that though a direction has been given by the
coordinate Bench to regularize the service of the
Petitioner and grant all consequential benefits as due
and admissible to him in accordance with law, despite
such clear-cut direction for regularization of the service
of the Petitioner, sanction has been accorded by the
Opposite Party No.1 to appoint him against a work
charged establishment post. The alleged Compliance
Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1 is not
satisfactory, it being not in accordance with direction
given by the coordinate bench, as has been detailed
above.
9. In view of such submissions made by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner supported with the
judgments of the apex Court, Mr. Babu, learned AGA
for the Opposite Party No.1 prays for further two weeks'
time to file a better Compliance Affidavit. Prayer for
time to file such Affidavit is allowed.
10. Compliance Affidavit be filed by 18.09.2023 after
serving copy of the same on the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner.
11. Matter be listed on 22.09.2023.
(S. K. MISHRA)
padma JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: orissa high court, cuttack
Date: 04-Sep-2023 15:38:43
