Orissa High Court

Sarat Kumar Nayak vs ) Salini Pandit on 4 July, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              CONTC No.4820 of 2024
            Sarat Kumar Nayak             .....       Petitioner
                                                              Represented By Adv. -
                                                              M/s. Laxmikanta
                                                              Mohanty R.das S.das

                                             -versus-
            1) Salini Pandit, I.a.s.             .....                    Opposite
                                                                Parties/Contemnors
            2) Nishikanta Mishra,director                Represented By Adv. -Mr.
            Public Health                                J.K.Bal, A.G.A.
            3) Dr.prasanta Kumar Patra,
            C.d.m And P.h.o, Sundargarh

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                             ORDER

04.07.2025 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Contemnors-Opposite Parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.D. Jayaprakash and others vs. The Union of India and others in SLP(C) Nos.19539-19540 of 2021 disposed of on 29.04.2025, submitted before this Court that the issue involved in the present writ application was directly and substantially an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovenoted SLP(C). Further, referring to Para-9 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the contractual period of service rendered prior to the appellant's regularisation must be counted towards the payment of the pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17 of the Pension Rules. Accordingly, the SLP has been disposed of in terms of Rule 17 of Pension Rules.

4. Despite taking an adjournment, no steps have been taken by the State-Opposite Parties for listing of the Writ Appeal.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Contemnors-Opposite Parties, they are granted further six weeks' time to implement the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit, failing which the contemnor shall be asked to appear before this Court and explain as to why he shall not be proceeded against under the Contempt of Court's Act. However, it is made clear that the order to be passed in the present contempt application shall be subject to any order of the Appellate Court , if passed in the meantime.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the CONTC is disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi