Sanatan Tripathy G.Mathivathanan, Secy. H & UD Deptt., Odisha Secretariat, BBSR & Anr. … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No. 994 of 2019 Sanatan Tripathy G.Mathivathanan, Secy. H & UD Deptt., Odisha Secretariat, BBSR & Anr. ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr.S.K. Swain, Advocate Opposite Parties/Contemnors
Legal Reasoning
Mr.D.Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 18.08.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Learned Counsel for the parties are present. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Order No. 15. 2. 3. Parties/Contemnors draws attention of this Court to the Show Cause Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2, the present Secretary of Odisha State Housing Board, who has been arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 to the present contempt proceeding vide order dated 05.05.2023. 4. He further draws attention of this Court to the averments made in the said Show Cause Affidavit and submits, in terms of direction given by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.7988 of 2017, though the Petitioner was superannuated from service on 31.05.2017 on attaining the age of 58 years, on being directed by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 24.07.2017, the Petitioner was allowed to rejoin his duty on 26.07.2017 and he was permitted to continue till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years and he was superannuated on 31.05.2017. Consequent upon his rejoining, the break period i.e. from 31.05.2017 to 26.07.2017, was treated as continuous service so as to allow service benefits like Annual Increment notionally and count the said period as qualifying service for whatever retiral benefits due to the employees till attaining the age of 60 Page 1 of 4 years. 5. Mr. Swain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court to the operative portion of the judgment passed by this Court in Premalata Panda vs. State of Orissa & Anr. reported in 2015 (II) OLR 214 and submits, in terms of Para16(a) of the said judgment in Premalata Panda (supra), the Petitioner is entitled for financial benefits for the period from 01.06.2017 to 25.07.2017. Even after repeated representations of the Petitioner, for flouting of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7988 of 2017, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in CONTC No.1725 of 2018 specifically making averments to the said effect and the same was disposed of at the stage of admission directing the Opposite Parties/ Contemnors to comply the said order dated 24.07.2017 and 18.05.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.7988 of 2017 and I.A.No.6775 of 2018 within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of the certified copy of the said order, if not already complied with by the said time. 6. He further submits, though the said order dated 22.10.2018 as at Annexure-6, was communicated to the Contemnors, but it was never brought to the notice of this Court seeking modification of the said order in terms of the alleged compliance order dated 22.10.2018 . 7. Mr. Mohapatra further submits, the order passed by the coordinate Bench in the Writ Petition so also the Contempt Petition have already been complied with and duly communicated to the Petitioner vide the said order dated 22.10.2018 as at Annexure-6 . If the Petitioner was aggrieved by such communication he should have approached this Court in a fresh writ petition as the same was well within his knowledge since the date of communication of the said order dated 22.10.2018. 8. Mr. Mohapatra, draws attention of this Court to office order dated 02.01.2018 as at Annexure -4 to CONTC No.1725 of 2018 and submits, a similarly placed person like the Petitioner namely, Sri Debendra Page 2 of 4 Samarth, Ex- S.O., also approached this Court in CONTC NO.1701 of 2018 making similar allegations as to non compliance of the direction given by this Court in his case . The said Contempt Petition was disposed of with observation that the order passed by this Court in the case of Premalata Panda vs. State of Orissa & Anr has been complied with. However, liberty was granted to the Petitioner in the said contempt proceeding to approach the appropriate forum ventilating his grievances by filing a properly constituted application, if any cause of action survives. 9. Mr. Mohapatra hands up photocopy of the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in CONTC No.1701 of 2018, which is extracted below: “Heard Mr. R.N. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 The petitioner has filed this contempt petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12125 of 2015 and the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in CONTC No.162 of 2018. Mr. R.N. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the Petitioner was allowed to continue in his service till attaining the age of 60 years in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Premalata Panda v. State of Orissa and another, 2015 (II) OLR214, the financial benefit has been fixed by notionally and but the financial benefit for the period from 31.07.2015 to of 20.07.2017, superannuation at the age of 58 years to the date of rejoining in service has not been paid. In view of the above, the order passed by this Court has been complied with to the extent that the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years but the financial benefit for the period he was not in service that is separate cause of action which requires from date i.e., the Page 3 of 4 consideration. Therefore, the order passed by this Court has been complied with. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to forum approach ventilating his grievances by filing a properly constituted application, if any cause of action survives”. (Emphasis supplied) appropriate the 10. In view of the order passed in CONTC No.1701 of 2018, as quoted above, as the present contempt proceeding is identical to the said case, the same is dropped and disposed of with a liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum ventilating his grievances, if any cause of action arise in future. (S.K.MISHRA) JUDGE Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 21-Aug-2023 10:46:31 Page 4 of 4