AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J
All the above noted contempt petitions arise out of a common order dated 16.11.1999 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A.
No.2559 (C) of 1999 and batch. The petitioners herein as applicants filed separate Original Applications, as mentioned above. Since the said Original
Applications involved identical question of facts and law, they were allowed by the tribunal vide common order dated 16.11.1999. The said order
having not been complied with, individual contempt petitions were filed before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal for compliance. But after abolition
of Odisha Administrative Tribunal, those contempt petitions have been transferred to this Court and renumbered as above. Since common cause of
action is involved, all the contempt petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this judgment, which will govern in all the contempt petitions.
The petitioners in the above noted contempt petitions were engaged in the work-charged establishment and were not brought over to regular
establishment on completion of five years of service from the date of their entry. Their grievance is that if they are not appointed in any regular post,
they will be deprived of the pension and retiral benefits ultimately. Therefore, they filed individual Original Applications seeking direction for
regularization of their services. The said Original Applications were allowed keeping in view the Government of Odisha, Finance Department
resolution dated 22.01.1965, by which it was decided for absorption of such employees after completion of five years in work-charged establishment
and also Government of Odisha, Finance Department office memorandum dated 06.03.1990, which laid down that the employees under the work-
charged establishment are entitled to get pension. The tribunal also took note that similar question had already been decided in O.A. No.1819 of 1996,
wherein it was observed that the benefits of absorption in regular establishment would be available not only to serving work-charged employees, but
also to those, who have already retired, and that taking into consideration of the same, the tribunal had already passed order in O.A. No.973 of 1989,
O.A. No.920 of 1997 and O.A. No.2309 of 1997. As the petitioners are serving in the work-charged establishment and have stood in same footing,
the tribunal held that they are also entitled to be absorbed in terms of the Finance Department resolution dated 22.01.1965. By holding so, the tribunal
disposed of all the Original Applications by a common order dated 16.11.1999, the effective part of which runs as follows:
“In conformity with the order referred to above, I would like to direct the respondents to absorb the applicants in the establishment post with effect from the
date they have completed 5 years of continuous service. After such absorption in the regular establishment, their annual increments as may be found due and
admissible in the various revised pay scales be considered within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.â€
The tribunal, while issuing the above direction, fixed six months time for compliance. Though six months period was over, the said order was not
complied with. Hence, the petitioners filed above mentioned individual contempt petitions before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal for compliance of
order dated 16.11.1999. Instead of complying with the same, the State filed review petitions against the order passed by the tribunal in each of the
Original Applications along with petitions for condonation of delay, which were numbered as mentioned above. The tribunal, vide order dated
13.07.2015, passed the following order:
“Law is well settled that review is maintainable, if there is any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, but not for the purpose of reassessing the
evidence, which would amount to sitting on appeal.
Since the ground on which review has been sought for, amounts to reassessing the evidence, and there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record, we
are not inclined to accept such contention of the State-respondents. Accordingly the petitions for review and the L.Ps are rejected.
List the C.Ps. in the 2nd week of August, 2015. Send copies.â€
Against the order dated 16.11.1999 passed in O.A. No.2559(C) of 1999 and the order dated 13.07.2015 passed in R.P. No.18(C) of 2000 by the
tribunal, the State and its functionaries approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7246 of 2016. This Court, vide order dated 08.01.2018, passed the
following order:
“8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is apparent that the opposite party no.1, who has been superannuated in the
meantime, was in the work-charged establishment for much more than five years of service. Moreover, there can be no second opinion that the resolution dated
22.01.1965 of the Finance Department is applicable to the case of work-charged employees of different Projects of the Government of Odisha. As such, we find no
reason to take a different view in this matter interfering with the orders under Annexures-2 and 5 passed by learned Tribunal.
In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the opinion that learned Tribunal has passed a just and reasoned order and there is no error apparent on
the face of the impugned orders, which would warrant interference of this Court. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders under
Annexures-2 and 5.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.â€
Assailing the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7246 of 2016, the State approached the apex Court in SLP, which was
registered as Diary No.23207/2018 and the apex Court, vide order dated 30.07.2018, dismissed the said SLP. As a consequence thereof, the order
dated 16.11.1999 passed by the tribunal in O.A. No.2559(C) of 1999 and batch, out of which these contempt petitions have been filed by the individual
petitioners, has reached its finality. When these contempt petitions were pending before the tribunal, a show cause affidavit was filed on behalf of the
opposite parties, stating, inter alia, that the State and its functionaries filed W.P.(C) No.7246 of 2016 before this Court on 26.04.2016 challenging the
order dated 13.07.2015 passed in R.P. No.18(C) of 2000 arising out of O.A. No.2559 (C) of 1999 and order dated 16.11.1999 passed in O.A.
No.2559(C) of 1999 and batch.
Since both writ petition filed before this Court and the SLP preferred before the apex Court by the State have been dismissed, the order dated
16.11.1999 passed by the tribunal in O.A. No.2559 (C) of 1999 and batch has reached its finality. Even though the order dismissing the SLP was
passed by the apex Court on 30.07.2018 and in the meantime near about 3 years are going to lapse, the order of the tribunal passed on 16.11.1999 has
not be been complied with. Not only that, in the meantime, even though more than 21 years have elapsed, the order dated 16.11.1999 passed by the
tribunal has not been complied with by the opposite parties deliberately and willfully.
Law of contempt is of fundamental importance in every legal system. The power, which the courts have of vindicating their own authority, is coeval
with their first foundation and institution. It is necessary incident to every court of justice to fine and imprison for contempt of the court committed on
the face of it. The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power effectively to protect the right of the public by ensuring
that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented. The contempt jurisdiction appears to be based on the principle that the court has
the duty of protecting the interest of community in the due administration of justice and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of
court, not to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of
justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.
Contempt jurisdiction is exercised for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and dignity of judicial system and also of the Courts and Tribunals
entrusted with the task of administering delivery of justice. Power of contempt has often been invoked, as a step in that direction for enforcing
compliance with orders of courts and punishing for lapses in the matter of compliance. The majesty of judicial institution is to be ensured so that it may
not be lowered and the functional utility of the constitutional edifice is preserved from being rendered ineffective.
In Arundhati Roy, in Re, (2002) 3 SCC 343, the apex Court held that the confidence in the courts of justice which the people possess, cannot in any
way be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by contumacious behavior of many person. The only weapon of protecting itself from the
onslaught to the institution is the long hand of contempt of court left in the armoury of judicial repository which, when needed, can reach any neck
howsoever high or far away it may be.
In Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 SC, the apex Court in paragraph-39 held as follows:
“The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding Judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of men to
decide, is not a privilege accorded to Judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for Judges as persons but for the functions which they
exercise.â€
In view of such position, this Court is of the firmed view that the opposite parties are deliberately and willfully not complying with the direction
given by the tribunal in its order dated 16.11.1999 passed in respective Original Applications.
It has been brought to the notice of this Court that during pendency of this proceeding, some of the petitioners have also died and they have not
tested the usufructs of the orders of the tribunal. This case exhibits a bright example that a mighty Government can go to what extent to deprive the
legitimate claim of poor employees, who knocked at the door of justice for redressing their grievances. In the premises, this Court comes to a
conclusion that opposite parties have violated the order of the tribunal even after dismissal of the SLP on 30.07.2018 preferred by them before the
apex Court.
In that view of the matter, the opposite parties, having violated the orders of the tribunal, have committed contempt of the Court. However, this
Court, instead of punishing, grants a chance to the opposite parties to comply with the order dated 16.11.1999 passed by the tribunal in O.A.
No.2559(C) of 1999 and batch, by 31.08.2021, failing which the salary of the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Odisha and the
Engineer-in-Chief Irrigation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar shall be stopped till the order is implemented. If the order of the tribunal is complied with by
31.08.2021, the direction given in this order with regard to stoppage of salary may not be given effect to.
The contempt proceedings are hereby disposed of with the above direction.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the judgment
available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide
Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
…………….………….