Orissa High Court
Susanta Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 14 July, 2021
Author: Biswanath Rath
Bench: Biswanath Rath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC (CPC) No.311 of 2016
Susanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. G.C. Swain,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Mishra,
Standing Counsel for
the School & Mass Education Department
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
14.07.2021 Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. This matter was not in the today's list. Since similar nature of petitions are disposed of today, on being specially mentioned this matter is called for and disposed of with the following orders:
3. This matter arises out of disposal of a batch of original applications by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal as appearing at Annexure-1 involving disposal of O.A. No.2494(C) of 2011 alongwith several other applications together on 28.09.2015. From the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, it appears, this common judgment of the Tribunal was challenged in several writ applications with the case heading the proceeding before the Division Bench vide W.P.(C) No.23910 of 2017, which matter was Page 1 of 5 // 2 // finally disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 19.12.2018, which reads as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. By way of these writ petitions the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.3251(C) of 2011 and batch of cases.
It appears from paragraph-4 of the impugned order that the Tribunal disposed of the Original Applications relying upon an earlier Division Bench decision of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No.2025 of 1996 relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"However, the last pay he was getting as Resource Teachers may be protected in the scale of Rs.950- 1500/- taking recourse to Rule 74(d) of the Orissa Service Code provided his last pay was not higher than Rs.1500/-. Orders in this regard be entitled to get only Rs.1500/-. Orders in this regard be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The said order was subsequently assailed before this Court and the same has been confirmed vide order dated 05.05.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.3441 of 2017. It is, however, revealed that the State Government has not filed any reply/counter affidavit before the Tribunal. Thus, it will not be appropriate for us to entertain the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education Department as the same was never raised before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate for the State-Petitioners to approach the Tribunal by filing a properly constituted review application.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that if the State-Petitioners approach the Tribunal within a period of thirty days hence by filing a review application, the same be considered in accordance with law.
Page 2 of 5// 3 // We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases of either party."
3. Taking this Court to the order quoted hereinabove, Mr. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that in consideration of the case of the State, though the Division Bench declined to express any opinion on the claim of the State, however, in the disposal of the batch of cases directed, if the State-Petitioner approaches the Tribunal within a period of 30 days hence by filing review application, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. On being instructed, Mr. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel further submitted that there has been filing of review cases in some of the proceedings, some of which, are in the Board even today.
4. It is submitted that there has also been filing of review application in other cases and all review applications are yet to be entertained. Mr. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel contended that for the pendency of such issue, the contempt proceeding in the present form is not maintainable and the State-Opposite Parties should be provided with opportunity to agitate their claim in the review petition to be adjudicated.
5. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that even though there has been filing of review cases in some of the proceedings, but the same only remains in the filing stage and in the meantime two & half years have already passed without any outcome therein. Therefore, a contention is raised by Mr. Swain, learned counsel that in fact there is no impediment in working out the direction involved herein.
Page 3 of 5// 4 //
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly for the permission of the Division Bench in disposal of the W.P.(C) No.23910 of 2017 and other batch of cases, review petitions have already been filed involving such type of disputes. For example, this Court finds, there is pendency of RVWPET (RPC) No.7 of 2019 in the Contempt (CPC) No.304 of 2016 and RVWPET (RPC) No.29 of 2019 in Contempt (CPC) No.314 of 2016 and RVWPET (RPC) No.2 of 2019 in Contempt (CPC) No.315/2016.
7. There is no dispute that these review applications involving disposal of batch of cases are only in filing stage. However, taking into consideration that review petitions have already been filed, this Court is of the opinion that the review petitions need to be disposed of in accordance with law. In such view of the matter and particularly keeping in view that in the meantime long two & half years have passed, this Court directs, if the State-Opposite Parties are so advised, may take appropriate steps in the ultimate disposal of the review petition pending before this Court involving disposal of the above batch of petitions by the learned Tribunal.
8. Be that as it may, this Court finds, there is no stay of the direction of the Tribunal as of now, at the same time, pendency of the review petitions cannot also lost its sight of, but however till disposal of the review petitions indicated hereinabove, there is no impediment in complying the order of the Tribunal. In the process while permitting the State - Opposite Parties to take all possible steps for disposal of the review petitions whenever pending at least within a period of two months from now, this Court disposes of the contempt petition with a directs to the contemnors to comply with the direction of the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Tribunal within a period of fifteen days after expiry of two months provided there is no change in the judgment of the Tribunal in question through disposal of the review, if any. Further considering that the direction of the Tribunal was given way back on 28.09.2015 and a valuable six years time has already lapsed in the meantime, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner involved herein cannot be made to suffer any further.
9. The contempt proceeding stands disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to place the Review Petition before the appropriate Bench for disposal.
10. As restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order 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.
(Biswanath Rath) Judge Ayas Kanta Jena Page 5 of 5