Durga Prasad Nayak Vs Dr. Prof. Lal Mohan Nayak, Supdt. of Vimsar, Burla

The petitioner, in the present contempt petition alleges disobedience of this Court’s order dated 01.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.26596 of 2021, which reads as under:

¶15

“This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Government Advocate for the State.

¶17

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service with consequential sanction of all benefits within a stipulated time.

¶18

4. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar matter, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 24687 of 2021 has already been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2022, whereby the benefit was directed to be extended to the petitioner therein and the petitioner having stood in the same

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

footing, the case of the petitioner may be disposed of in terms of the said order and the opposite parties may be directed to extend the benefit in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

5. Mr. J. P. Patnaik, learned Government Advocate contended that if similar matter has already been disposed of by this Court, this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the observation/direction given in the said writ petition.

¶22

6. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the observation/ direction issued in W.P.(C) No. 24687 of 2021 decided on 11.08.2022.”

¶23

In the said writ proceeding, Veer Surendra Sai Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (VIMSAR) was a party and direction against VIMSAR was sought.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to this Court’s decision dated 11.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.24687 of 2021 to contend that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the said decision and accordingly, the opposite parties ought to have taken a decision in the light of this Court’s order dated 01.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.26596 of 2021.

¶25

It is, however, an admitted fact that in W.P.(C) No.26596 of 2021, VIMSAR was not noticed and no one had represented VIMSAR in the said writ proceeding. The submission of Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Government Advocate, as recorded in the order dated 01.12.2022, could not be treated as the submission on behalf of VIMSAR.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

In such view of the matter, in the Court’s opinion, no deliberate disobedience of this Court’s order is made out. I am, therefore, not inclined to proceed further in the present contempt proceeding.

¶28

Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.

¶29

It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority under VIMSAR to seek his claim or approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law in that regard.

¶30

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶31

S. Behera

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2024 16:47:33

Durga Prasad Nayak v. Dr. Prof. Lal Mohan Nayak, Supdt. of Vimsar, Burla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Prasad Nayak v. Dr. Prof. Lal Mohan Nayak, Supdt. of Vimsar, Burla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subham Hota Vs Ramakrushna Sahoo

Sarojini Mishra Vs Md.Sadique Alam

Tapan Ku.Nanda Vs Adm,Jajpur andANR.

Janarddan Padhi Vs Lagnajit Rout

Debajyoti Das Vs Amiya Ku.Sarangi

Sailabala Malli Vs Puspanjali Jena