Swagatika Patel Vs Roopa Roshan Mishra, I.A.S. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Swagatika Patel Vs Roopa Roshan Mishra, I.A.S. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceeding dropped; no punitive action against the alleged contemnors, who had tendered unconditional apology for delayed compliance; liberty expressly preserved to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 20th July, 2024 before the appropriate forum.

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt application should be proceeded with where compliance with the writ direction has been effected (though beyond the stipulated time), unconditional apology has been tendered, and the authority has taken a conscious decision rejecting the petitioner's regularization claim, constituting a fresh cause of action. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the compliance has been effected and a conscious decision has been taken by the authority (order dated 20th July, 2024), the same constitutes a fresh cause of action; the Court therefore does not intend to proceed with the instant contempt application, and the contempt proceeding is dropped.

Ratio / Principle

Unconditional apology tendered by the alleged contemnors for the delayed compliance was accepted by the Court.

Key takeaways

The Court put a note of caution that the authority must show alacrity in adhering to time limits fixed in its orders and should not show any reluctance in strict compliance thereof.obiter¶20
The order dropping the contempt proceeding shall not stand in the way of challenging the order dated 20th July, 2024 before the appropriate forum.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — alleged non-compliance of direction in judgment dated 21st September, 2023 in W.P.(C) No.22772 of 2018 to consider petitioner's regularization in service (whereby the Division Bench had quashed the order dated 2nd November, 2018 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench) — alleged contemnors submitted that compliance was made, albeit beyond the three-month period, and tendered unconditional apology, producing the order dated 20th July, 2024 of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Odisha, ST & SC Development, M & BCW Department, whereby the petitioner's regularization application was dismissed after consideration — held, since compliance has already been done and a conscious decision taken, it constitutes a fresh cause of action; the Court declined to proceed with the contempt application and dropped the contempt proceeding, with a note of caution to the authority to adhere strictly to time limits — the order dropping the contempt proceeding shall not stand in the way of challenging the order dated 20th July, 2024 before the appropriate forum.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.3601 of 2024

Swagatika Patel

…. Petitioner

Mr.Abhiram Swain, Advocate

-versus-

Smt.Roopa Roshan Mishra, I.A.S., Commissioner-cum-S.T. & S.C.Development (Tribal Welfare) Department and others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr.Subha Bikash Panda, Addl. Government Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

28.10.2025

02. 1. The instant contempt application arises from a judgment and order dated 21^st September, 2023 passed in W.P. (C) No.22772 of 2018. The order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 2^nd November, 2018 was the subject-matter of challenge in the said writ petition. In the penultimate paragraph, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said writ petition interfered with the said order and ultimately quashed and set aside the same. The Court further directed the opposite parties (the alleged contemnors) to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in service keeping in view the rulings of the Supreme Court and also of this Court as stated in the preceding paragraphs of the said judgment. It was further observed that in the event the authority decides to regularize the services of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service and financial benefits as admissible in law. Ultimately, the

Page 1 of 3

entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of the said order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties (alleged contemnors) submits that in terms of the said direction, compliance has already been made, but there appears to be a delay in adhering to the time limit set forth in the said order. 2 . 1. To that effect, the alleged contemnors tenders unconditional apology. A copy of the order dated 20^th July, 2024 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Odisha, ST & SC Development, M & BCW Department is handed over to this Court indicating that the claim of the petitioner has been considered and on the basis of the findings and/or reasons assigned therein, the authority did not find that the petitioner eligible for regularization of her services and proceeded to dismiss the said application filed by the petitioner for regularization of her services.

2.2. Since unconditional apology for delayed compliance is tendered to this Court, this Court simply put a note of caution that the authority must show alacrity in adhering to the time limit set forth in the order and should not show any reluctance in strict compliance thereof. Since the compliance has already been done and a conscious decision has been taken by the authority, it constitutes a fresh cause of action, and therefore, it is open to the petitioner to take an appropriate step as permissible in law.

3 . At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pleads ignorance of the said order having passed and according to him, his client has instructed that she has not received any such order. However, to eradicate any such complications that may arise

Page 2 of 3

in future, the counsel for the alleged contemnors hands over the copy of the said order dated 20^th July, 2024 to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Court.

3.1. In view of the findings made hereinabove, since the order constitute a fresh cause of action, we do not intend to proceed with the instant contempt application. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped.

4. However, the order dropping the contempt proceeding shall not stand in the way of challenging the said order dated 20^th July, 2024 before the appropriate forum.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

Bichi

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 29-Oct-2025 18:56:40

Page 3 of 3