Narasingh Nayak vs Usha Padhee
2025 Latest Caselaw 4595 Ori

Orissa High Court

Narasingh Nayak vs Usha Padhee on 4 March, 2025

       THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      CONTC No.7671 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971)

Narasingh Nayak                  .......                 Petitioner


                                -Versus-


Usha Padhee, IAS & others         .......              Opp. Parties/
                                                   Contemnors


      For the Petitioner   :    Mr. G.K. Behera


      For the Opp. Parties/ :   Mr. S.J. Mohanty,
              Contemnors        Additional Standing Counsel



CORAM:
  THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 16.01.2025 :      Date of Judgment: 04.03.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking punishment for the commission of the Contempt
of Court by the contemnors for having willfully and deliberately
not complied with the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the
learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack
in O.A. No.1577(C)/2005.




                                                          Page 1 of 9
 2.    The petitioner had filed O.A. No.1577(C)/2005 before the
learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack
seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceeding dated 15.07.1994
initiated against him by the department and also direction for
regularization of his service and the consequential service
benefits.
3.    On 30.08.2013, the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack      Bench,      Cuttack,    while     disposing     of    the   O.A.
No.1577(C)/2005, passed the following direction:
            "...... In the result, the O.A. is allowed. Respondents are

directed to regularize the services of the applicant with all consequential service benefits as per the rules including the arrears of salary and other retiral benefits.

The entire exercise be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

4. The aforementioned order remained non-complied. Therefore, the petitioner filed the Contempt Petition, being CONTC (CPC) No.34 of 2015.

5. This Court, vide its order dated 21.12.2021, passed the following order in the aforementioned contempt petition.

"7. ........ To avoid further time, in disposal of the Contempt Petition, this Court observes in the event the direction issued in the said original application is not complied with as of now, the present incumbent is directed to work out the same within a period of one and half month hence, provided the order of the Tribunal is not challenged in higher forum with an order of stay of such order. The compliance report be filed before the Registry of this Court within a period of one week thereafter. Failure of compliance of this order shall be construed to be deliberate violation of this Court's order and there will be initiation of a suo motu contempt proceeding against the contemnor (s)."

Since the final order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal still remained non-complied despite the order of this

Court in the Contempt Proceeding, the Registry has initiated SUO MOTU CONTC No.275 of 2023. This Court, again on 22.03.2023 passed the following order in the suo motu proceedings:

"8....... this Court directs the Contemnor to file show cause as to why he shall not be punished under the provision of Contempt of Court's Act for gross-violation of the repeated direction of this Court. Pendency of the Contempt Petition shall not stand as a bar even in working out the direction and communicating the outcome by way of affidavit on the next date of listing. Violation of filing of affidavit and/or complying with the order, there shall be personal appearance of the contemnor in this Court on the next date of listing. Put up this matter on 24.04.2023."

6. The contemnor on 19.04.2023 filed a compliance affidavit in the SUO MOTU Contempt Proceeding. Relying upon the compliance affidavit, this Court, vide order dated 24.04.2023, disposed of the SUO MOTU Contempt Proceeding, inter alia, observing as under:

"the contempt application stands disposed of simply recording there is compliance of direction but however with liberty to the petitioner to revive the contempt in case there is false submission made to this Court"

Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition averring that the authorities have falsely given impression to the Court that, they have already complied with the order of the learned Tribunal dated 30.08.2013. However, neither the services of the petitioner have been regularized nor his retiral benefits have been given to him.

7. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the contemnor has filed the response affidavit dated 20.11.2023, inter alia, contending as under:

"13. That, it is humbly submitted that with due deference to the order of the Hon'ble Court, the department have taken all possible steps to trace out the records of service at different stations, and taking into account availability of

such records, the service of the petitioner have been regularized and all the arrear salary due to the petitioner have been paid to him in different spells as reported by the Superintending Engineer RWS & S Circle, Nuapada vide Letter No.2909 dated 06.10.2023.

14. That, it is humbly submitted that after drawal of the arrear salary and taking into account the 25 years and two months of qualifying service of the petitioner and last pay at Rs.19,480/- as on date of retirement on 30.04.2013, his provisional pension has been sanctioned at Rs.9,740/- with effect from 1.5.2013 + TI as admissible from time to time. Further, the said provisional pension has been revised to Rs.25,032/- under ORSP Rules, 2017 + TI as admissible from time to time. Besides, the un-utilized earned leave for a period of 300 days and provisional gratuity for Rs.2,43,500/- along with provisional pension arrear of Rs.22,12,336/- has been paid to the petitioner.

15. That, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner in the present Contempt Petition has alleged that a bare perusal of the papers under annexure-A/1 of the compliance affidavit would to show that entire service period of petitioner working under different stations has not been taken into consideration and made his duty period as extra ordinary leave debarring him from his qualifying service causing him heavy financial loss and injury. The Opposite Parties have not filed the detail compliance report along with the detail papers showing that his entire service period has been regularized and he has been granted all other consequential service benefits i.e. Time Bound Advancement Scale/Assured Career Progression/ Revised Assured Career Progression with all differential salaries.

16. That, it is humbly submitted that the Engineer-in-Chief PH, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, after sanction of foreign service terms and conditions for the period of deputation to different NACs/ Municipalities, vide Letter No.4404 dated 28.04.2023 has moved the matter to Accountant General, Odisha, Bhubaneswar along with original service book for calculation and recording of LS & PC in the service book and last reminded vide EIC RWS&S Odisha, Letter No.10228 dated 26.09.2023.

That, it is submitted that after receipt of original service book from the Executive Officer, Bhawanipatna Municipality vide Letter No.3638 dated 13.10.2023, Sri Narasingha Nayak, Ex-JE, PH now AE, PH (Retd.) (Petitioner) has been allowed TBA Scale of pay of Rs.5,500-175-9000/- after completion of 15 years of

service in the grade of Junior Engineer with effect from

08.02.1997 vide EIC, PH Office Order No.10186 dated 26.10.2023.

17. The grievance allegation of the petitioner as regard to regularization of service and sanction of ACP/RACP benefits will be considered within three months time and thereafter on receipt of pension documents, complete in all respect from the petitioner within 15 days, the final pension as admissible will be sanctioned by the Opposite Parties."

8. The contemnors have also assured this Court in the affidavit that, regularization of the service of the petitioner and sanction of ACP/RACP benefits will be considered within three months after receiving the pension documents.

9. The petitioner filed the objection to the show-cause reply dated 20.11.2023 by filing a detailed affidavit dated 14.12.2023. He has furnished a detailed chart claiming the financial benefit and has also stated that all the relevant pension papers/ documents are already in the possession of the contemnors. Hence, the contemnors have deliberately not complied with the order of this Court and the Tribunal.

10. The matter was heard in extenso and the following order was passed on 28.06.2024:

"1. Heard.

2. This is a contempt petition seeking initiation of contempt proceeding against the contemnors having willfully not complied the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal and order dated 24.04.2023 passed by this Court in the suo motu proceeding, i.e., SUO MOTU CONTC No.275 of 2023.

3. It is prima facie appears that the aforementioned direction has not been complied.

4. Therefore, issue notice to the contemnors calling upon them as to why contempt proceeding shall not be initiated against them and shall not be punished for having willfully and deliberately not complying with the orders dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal and order

dated 24.04.2023 passed by this Court in the suo motu proceeding, i.e., SUO MOTU CONTC No.275 of 2023 by Speed Post /Registered Post with A.D. requisites for which shall be filed within one week.

5. List this matter on 1st of August, 2024.

6. At this stage, the personal appearance of the contemnors is exempted. However, it is made clear that if the direction of this Court is not complied, this Court shall compel for the personal appearance of the contemnors."

11. Pursuant to the aforementioned order of this Court, the contemnors have again filed a detailed compliance affidavit dated 31.07.2024. In the said affidavit, the contemnors have very specifically mentioned that the entire retiral benefits to the tune of Rs.31,13,857/- till 18.05.2024 have already been credited to the account of the petitioner.

It is further contended that vide Office Order dated 18.07.2024, the second RACP (GP of Rs.5400/-) in favour of the petitioner after completion of 15 years of service in the grade of Junior Engineer with effect from 26.04.1999 has been paid. It is also contended that, the arrear bill amounting to Rs.61,944/- towards the TBA and RACP has already been sanctioned and sent to the Treasury for disbursement.

12. The contemnors have also submitted that the provisional pension has already been sanctioned at the enhanced rate of Rs.26,548/- under ORSP Rules, 2017. It is submitted by the contemnors that consequent upon the sanction of the TBA and RACP, the last pay of the petitioner has been arrived at Rs.20,660/- per month. According to the contemnors, they have substantially complied with the direction of the learned Tribunal dated 30.08.2013. Nothing more is payable to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the objection dated 23.08.2024 and also dated

03.09.2024. The petitioner precisely contended that until and unless his services from station to station are chronologically regularized, his length of qualifying service and last pay cannot be derived. On the basis of the length of qualifying service, TBA, RACP, Gratuity and other retiral benefits are decided. However, in the present case, the contemnors have not regularized his service. He also contended that, unless and until the last pay and the total qualifying service have been derived, the petitioner is unable to submit his final pension papers. He submitted that, let the contemnors regularize his services, and then only he would submit his pension papers.

13. In response to the objection, this Court again sought a reply from the contemnors. The contemnors finally filed their compliance affidavit dated 17.12.2024, inter alia, stating that the direction of the learned Tribunal has been complied fully. The contemnor No.3 has also filed a supportive affidavit dated 11.09.2024 reiterating his stand taken by the other contemnors in their earlier affidavit and stated that, the Panchayati Raj Department is not the Nodal Department. Therefore, the contempt proceeding drawn against the contemnor No.3 is liable to be dropped.

14. The petitioner, in response to the aforementioned compliance affidavit, has filed an additional affidavit dated 17.12.2024 raising the same grievance. Relevant would be to reproduce the prime grievance raised by the petitioner, which reads as under:

"That all the service particulars of the petitioner are readily available with the opp. Parties. But without going through them, in one way or other the matter of regularization of his service was delayed and the petitioner was compelled to sign and submit the final pension papers. Out of 10 stations 3 stations has been left.

Consequent upon regularization of service of all the stations, the consequential service benefits including the arrears of salary & retiral benefits would be changed."

15. I have gone through the voluminous pleadings of both parties before this Court. The matter has been heard at length on different dates and as many as 12 orders have been passed in this matter spending hearing for about two years.

16. Perusal of the compliance affidavit filed by the contemnors from time to time leaves no doubt that the contemnors have substantially complied with the direction of the learned Tribunal dated 30.08.2013 and the subsequent order dated 21.12.2021 of this Court. However, the petitioner has been raising grievance after grievance, which needs to be adjudicated. The Supreme Court of India in Bihar State Govt. Sec. Scl. Teachers ... vs Ashok Kumar Sinha & Ors, AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 2824 rendered the following decision:

"19. At the outset, we may observe that we are conscious of the limits within which we can undertake the scrutiny of the steps taken by the respondents, in these Contempt proceedings. The Court is supposed to adopt cautionary approach which would mean that if there is a substantial compliance of the directions given in the judgment, this Court is not supposed to go into the nitty gritty of the various measures taken by the Respondents. It is also correct that only if there is willful and contumacious disobedience of the orders, that the Court would take cognizance. Even when there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, case of contempt is not made out. At the same time, it is permissible for the Court to examine as to whether the steps taken to purportedly comply with the directions of the judgment are in furtherance of its compliance or they tend to defeat the very purpose for which the directions were issued."

In this regard, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Subhash Chandra vs. Srikant Goswami Posted Managing 2024:AHC- LKO:58884-DB has highlighted the nuances and complexities of

the legal issues and held thus:

"In the instant case, it is pointed out that since the Contempt Court found that substantial compliance of the order passed by the writ court had been made, hence, the Contempt Court did not find it worthwhile to proceed, consequently, the proceedings were dropped, leaving it open for the Contempt- petitioner, if aggrieved against the order of compliance to raise his grievance before the appropriate Forum."

On the conspectus of the aforementioned discussion of facts and law, this Court holds that the contempt proceedings are not adjudication proceedings. The matter has been extensively considered over multiple sessions of hearing, since the contemnors have substantially complied with the directions of the learned Tribunal and this Court, in the opinion of the Court, the contemnors have purged the contempt. Therefore, the contempt petition fails. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped, leaving it open to the petitioner, if aggrieved against the order of compliance to raise his grievances before the appropriate forum.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa Dated 4th March, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 10-Mar-2025 19:47:07