[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Deeptimayee Panda vs Ms. Shalini Pandit on 23 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No. 7667 of 2024
Deeptimayee Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Ms. Shalini Pandit, Commissioner- .... Opposite Party
cum-Secretary, School and Mass
Education Department
Mr. Saswat Das, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 23.03.2026
09. 1. This contempt application is taken out by the petitioner
alleging that the alleged contemnor has wilfully and/or deliberately
violated the order of this Court dated 5 th October, 2023 passed in
WPC(OAC) No.3586 of 2015. The said order runs thus:
"This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to
quash the notification dated 03.08.2015 under
Annexure-3 containing the recommendation of the
meeting under Annexure-4 and to issue direction to
the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to consider her case
for appointment against any posts of Group-C
category from the date of joining with all service and
financial benefits.
4. Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the case of the petitioner is covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of State of Odisha
v. Bindusagar Samantray (W.A. No.810 of 2021
disposed of on 25.09.2023), to which Mr. A.K.
Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties has raised no
objection.
5. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition
stands disposed of in terms of the judgment of this
Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Bindusagar
Samantray (W.A. No.810 of 2021 disposed of on
25.09.2023)."
2. It thus appears from the said order quoted hereinabove that
the writ petition filed by the petitioner was in relation to a
notification dated 3rd August, 2015 containing the recommendation
of the meeting and seeks a direction upon the authorities to consider
her case for appointment against any posts of Group-C category
from the date of joining with all service and financial benefits.
3. At the time of disposal of the said writ petition, the counsel
for the petitioner unequivocally submitted that the issue involved in
the said writ petition is covered by a judgment of this Court rendered
in the case of State of Odisha v. Bindusagar Samantray (W.A.
No.810 of 2021 disposed of on 25.09.2023). The said submission
advanced before the Bench was not opposed by the counsel
appearing for the State and on the basis of the aforesaid fact
discerned in course of the hearing, the Court disposed of the writ
petition with categorical observation that the judgment rendered in
State of Odisha v. Bindusagar Samantray (supra) shall apply to the
instant writ petition as well.
4. Our attention is drawn to the judgment rendered in State of
Odisha v. Bindusagar Samantray (supra) where one of the issues
relating to the applicability of the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 was raised and it was
categorically observed that the Rules which was prevalent on the
date of the death of the employee while in service shall govern the
applications relating to compassionate appointment. The operative
portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the
purpose of determining the submissions advanced before this Court,
which runs thus:
"We direct the appellants to consider the cases of the
petitioner-respondents within the period of sour
months from today. For that, the State shall form a
Special Committee for consideration of the cases of
the writ petitioners-respondents in order to assist the
authorities to issue the rehabilitation appointments.
We make it further clear that this Court will not
extend the stipulated time. Keeping that in view State
Government shall expedite the process of the
formation of committee. The cases of rehabilitation
appointments are to be considered with empathy and
hence the rigid technicalities are not germane. Before
parting with the records, we direct the respondent-
petitioners to extend all out cooperation to the State
Government to that their appointments can be
considered at earliest."
5. The cumulative effect of the narration of the facts as above
leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner was disposed of on the basis of the judgment rendered in
Bindusagar Samantaray (supra) and, therefore, the directions
passed therein become an integral part of the judgment rendered in
the said writ petition.
6. It is trite law that if the Court grants a relief out of several
reliefs claimed in the writ petition or moulds the relief at the time of
the disposal of the litigation in its finality, it implies the rejection of
the other reliefs. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that
in effect the challenge was made to an appointment letter issued to
the petitioner, which was not in commensurate with the educational
qualification and, therefore, while issuing the order of appointment,
the authorities must take into account the above aspects. Therefore,
the authorities have exposed themselves liable to be punished under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 having not suitably modified the
order of appointment in the manner as prayed for in the said writ
petition. We are unable to comprehend such notion and find any
substance in this regard.
7. As indicated herein above, though the reliefs were couched
in a different fashion, the counsel for the petitioner, at the time of the
hearing, categorically and unequivocally had submitted that the issue
is covered by an earlier judgment rendered by this Court in
Bindusagar Samantaray (supra). On the basis of such submission,
the writ petition was disposed of and it can be logically deduced
from the above sequel of facts that the operative portion of the
judgment passed in Bindusagar Samantaray (supra) is infused into
the writ petition filed by the petitioner and becomes an integral part
thereof.
8. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be stretched too far to
weed out the real issue and to ascertain the actual and explicit
intention of the litigant who approached the Court. The petitioner
might have challenged the order of appointment but the moment it is
disposed of on the basis of the judgment rendered in an earlier case,
as adverted to herein above, the authorities cannot be saddled with
any responsibility of doing a thing in accordance with the operative
portion of the said judgment. If the language in the judgment and
order is simple, clear, explicit and does not involve any ambiguity in
it, merely the petitioner perceived the same to be something
ingrained into it, does not expose the authorities to be punished
under the Contempt of Courts Act.
9. It is no gain saying that if the order is capable of being
interpreted more than one way, if one is adopted by the authority,
even if the Court feels that the other interpretation would be more
reasonable, it does not ipso facto render the decision of the authority
and shall not attract the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, the
Court should not punish the contemnors for alleged violation. Such
being the stand appears from the record and undisputed fact that the
petitioner has already been appointed on compassionate ground and
such service has further been regularized, merely because the
appointment is in a particular category and not in the category which
the petitioner feels ought to be on the basis of the educational
qualification, does not tantamount to a contemptuous act warranting
the Court to invoke such power.
10. We are conscious of the limited jurisdiction of the Court
exercised under the Contempt of Courts Act which is not only
restricted to the punishment of the person who violates the order and
undermines the sanctity and the majesty of the Court but also to see
that the order is duly implemented. The words or the expressions
used in the operative portion of the order conveys clear intention,
which we also gathered from bare reading thereof. The
compassionate appointment must be guided and/or regulated by the
Rules in vogue at the time of the death of the employee while in
service. We do not think that the contention of the petitioner that the
said judgment has to be read in such perspective that it directed the
authorities to revisit and/or reconsider the appointment made under
the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and appoint the person in
commensurate with the educational qualification which she
possesses.
11. In view of the above, the contempt is dropped.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Date: 25-Mar-2026 17:51:55
