Orissa High Court
Court’S Act) vs Ms. Aswathy S on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No. 2359 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Court's Act)
Sashi Bhusan Patel .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
Ms. Aswathy S, I.A.S., .... Opposite Party (s)
Secretary, Department of School and
Mass Education & Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sisir Kumar Purohit, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-05.05.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In filing this Contempt Application, the Petitioner has sought for a
direction from this Court to the Opposite Party/Contemnor for
implementing the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.4681 of 2022.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The present petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.4681 of 2022 claiming 3rd
R.A.C.P which denied to him counting the service from the date the
Petitioner acquired B.Ed. The petition was heard with a batch of cases
together and vide the common judgment and order dated 01.02.2023,
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
the same was allowed directing the Opp. Party No.3 therein to grant 3rd
MACP to the petitioner with effect from 13.01.2018. W.P.(C) No.19642 of
2022 was treated as the leading case in that judgment.
3. The fact of that case which was similar to the case of the present
Petitioner is that the Petitioner who is serving as Headmaster in
Sundargram High School, Sundargram, in the district of Cuttack has
filed W.P.(C) No.19642 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the Writ
Petition” for brevity) questioning the legality and propriety of Office
Order No.3424 dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Opposite Party
No.3/District Education Officer, Cuttack in not granting 3rd MACP with
effect from 13.01.2018 and also not treating the payment of Trained
Graduate Scale after acquiring Trained Graduate qualification as one
upgradation. He has challenged the said order on the ground that the
said order has been passed in clear violation of the order dated
09.10.2018 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for
brevity) in O.A. No.1668 of 2017 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra -vrs.- State
of Orissa and Ors.) which has been confirmed by this Court vide order
dated 13.03.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2020 (State of Odisha &
Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra & Anr.) and later by the Supreme
Court vide order dated 04.01.2021 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (c)
No.15573 of 2020 (The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar
Mohapatra) as well as the direction of the Government of Odisha,
Department of School and Mass Education vide Letter No.18126 dated
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
21.09.2021. Further, the Opposite Party No.2/ Director of Secondary
Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide Letter No.6363 dated 07.03.2022
had also instructed to the District Education Officer, Cuttack to comply
with the order of the learned Tribunal.
4. The brief fact of the present case, in nutshell, is that the present
Petitioner had preferred the above noted Writ Petition seeking a
direction from this Court to the Opposite Party No.3/District Education
Officer, Cuttack to grant 3rd MACP to the Petitioner with effect from
13.01.2018 and to treat the payment of Trained Graduate Scale after
acquiring Trained Graduate qualification as one up gradation.
5. After hearing the parties concerned in the above noted Writ Petition,
this Court vide the common order dated 01.02.2023 had disposed of the
said Writ Petition with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3/District
Education Officer, Cuttack to grant 3rd MACP to the Petitioner with
effect from 13.01.2018 and to treat the payment of Trained Graduate
Scale after acquiring Trained Graduate qualification as one up
gradation. However, though all other such persons having been paid
the 3rd RACP, the Petitioner has not yet been paid the said benefits.
Hence, this case.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions, as borne out from the
Written Note of Submissions:
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
i) The Petitioner had earlier represented before the Opposite Party
No.3 with the order dated 01.02.2023 seeking for implementation
of the order vide letter dated 06.03.2023.
ii) Though the order of this Court specifically stipulated a time limit
of three months for compliance, the Opposite Party No.3
remained completely inactive and took no steps for
implementation of the same till 04.04.2024, i.e., after a delay of
almost six and a half weeks beyond the stipulated period.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 04.04.2024, the Opposite Party No.3
sought clarification from Opposite Party No.2 regarding
implementation of the order, stating therein that he was unable to
understand how to implement the same.
iii) The Petitioner’s case had already been allowed along with the
batch of connected cases on 01.02.2023; however, despite the lapse
of considerable time and notwithstanding the fact that all other
similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of the 3rd
RACP pursuant to the order passed in the case of Ashok Kumar
Mohapatra and the Director’s letter dated 14.07.2022 addressed to
all District Education Officers, the Petitioner has arbitrarily been
denied payment of the said 3rd RACP till date.
iv) Thus, the deliberate and continued non-implementation of the
binding order passed by this Court has rendered the Opposite
Parties liable for action under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
v) He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this
CONTC.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
7. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party made the
following submissions:
(i) The Petitioner has suppressed material facts before this Court and
has not approached this Court with clean hands; therefore, he is
not entitled to any relief. Though the Petitioner has stated on oath
in his affidavit dated 10.02.2025 that he had exercised his option
for pay fixation in the prescribed format and alleged that the same
had been lost in the office of the District Education Officer,
Jharsuguda, with no action taken thereon by the concerned
authority, the said assertion is factually incorrect. On the contrary,
it appears that only vide letter dated 04.02.2026, the Petitioner
requested the District Education Officer, Jharsuguda to permit
him to change his option for RACP and to allow payment of
RACP w.e.f. 01.02.2013 by seeking modification of Office Order
No.7714 dated 28.11.2025.
(ii) The Petitioner is raising an issue with regard to change of option,
which constitutes an entirely new cause of action that was never
adjudicated on merits in the judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed in
W.P.(C) No.19642 of 2022 and batch of cases. Hence, with highest
regard to the majesty of the Rule of Law, the present contempt
petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as the judgment dated
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:5401.02.2023 of this Court stood modified vide order dated
01.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.4681 of 2022, which has already
been complied with in the meantime. Accordingly, the necessary
compliance affidavit was filed on 31.07.2025, and thereafter the
calculation sheet was also brought on record by way of affidavit
filed by the District Education Officer, Jharsuguda on 02.02.2026.
(iii) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Opposite
Party/ contemnor may kindly be exonerated from contempt
proceedings and this Court may graciously be pleased to drop the
present contempt petition.
IV. THIS COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the Opposite Party/Contemnor at length, and has perused
the record, including the order dated 01.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.4681 of 2022, the subsequent order dated 01.01.2024 passed in the
very same writ petition, the compliance affidavit dated 31.07.2025, the
calculation sheet brought on record by affidavit dated 02.02.2026, and
the letter dated 04.02.2026 addressed by the Petitioner to the District
Education Officer, Jharsuguda.
9. The question that falls for determination is a limited one, as indeed it
must be in a proceeding of this nature: whether the Opposite
Party/Contemnor has been guilty of wilful and contumacious
disobedience of the order dated 01.02.2023, so as to attract the penal
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
consequences contemplated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, or whether the order, as it stood modified, has in fact been
substantially complied with, thereby taking the case out of the realm of
contempt altogether.
10. It is well settled, and needs little reiteration, that the jurisdiction to
punish for contempt is not an ordinary jurisdiction to be invoked for
every instance of delayed or imperfect compliance; it is a jurisdiction to
be exercised with circumspection, and only where the disobedience is
shown to be wilful, deliberate and contumacious, and not where it is
explainable on grounds of bona fide difficulty, administrative exigency,
or genuine ambiguity as to the mode of implementation. A Court
exercising contempt jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the order
said to have been disobeyed, nor does it adjudicate upon fresh claims or
altered causes of action that were never the subject matter of the order
in question. The Court’s enquiry is confined to the narrow question of
whether the specific mandate of the Court has, in substance, been
carried out or not. Where compliance is demonstrated, howsoever
belatedly, and where nothing on record to suggest a design to defy or
circumvent the order, the extraordinary jurisdiction under the Act
ought not to be pressed into service merely to visit the errant officer
with punishment for the sake of punishment.
11. Tested on this anvil, the chronology borne out by the record does not, in
the considered view of this Court, disclose the wilful defiance that the
Petitioner would have this Court believe. It is true that the Opposite
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
Party No.3 did not implement the order dated 01.02.2023 within the
three-month period stipulated therein, and that compliance was set into
motion only after the Petitioner’s representation dated 06.03.2023,
culminating in the Opposite Party No.3 seeking clarification from the
Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 04.04.2024 as to the mode of
implementation.
12. A delay of this nature, attended by a bona fide request for clarification
rather than silence or stonewalling, is more properly characterised as
administrative inertia rather than as contumacious defiance thought the
two are not synonymous and it is only the latter that Section 12 of the
Act is designed to punish. More tellingly, the matter did not rest at the
stage of delay: the order dated 01.02.2023 itself came to be modified by
this Court vide order dated 01.01.2024 passed in the very same W.P.(C)
No.4681 of 2022, and it is the modified order that thereafter fell for
compliance. The Opposite Party has placed on record a compliance
affidavit dated 31.07.2025, followed by a calculation sheet brought on
record by affidavit dated 02.02.2026 filed by the District Education
Officer, Jharsuguda, demonstrating that the 3rd MACP has, in fact, been
extended to the Petitioner with effect from 13.01.2018, in terms of the
order as modified. Once compliance of this nature is placed before the
Court and remains substantially unrebutted, the foundation for
continuing a proceeding in contempt is displaced.
13. This Court finds equal force in the submission that the grievance now
sought to be agitated by the Petitioner especially the change of option
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
for RACP and the claim for payment with effect from 01.02.2013 by way
of modification of Office Order No.7714 dated 28.11.2025 stands on an
altogether different footing.
14. This claim was first articulated by the Petitioner only vide his letter
dated 04.02.2026, long after the order dated 01.02.2023 (and its
modification dated 01.01.2024) had attained finality, and it was never
adjudicated upon, far less directed to be granted, in the judgment
whose implementation is sought to be enforced in the present
proceeding. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be employed
as a vehicle for the espousal of a fresh and independent cause of action
dressed up as non-compliance. The Petitioner, if aggrieved on this
score, would have to seek his remedy through appropriate proceedings
on its own merits, and cannot short-circuit that process by clothing a
new claim in the garb of contempt.
15. It is also not without significance that the Petitioner’s own affidavit
dated 10.02.2025 proceeded on the assertion that he had exercised his
option for pay fixation in the prescribed format, which had allegedly
been lost in the office of the District Education Officer, Jharsuguda – an
assertion that sits uneasily with the undisputed fact that his request for
change of option was made for the first time only on 04.02.2026. A party
who invokes the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, which is founded
on considerations of equity and requires the utmost candour, cannot
expect indulgence where the very premise of the grievance is shown to
rest on an infirm or inaccurate factual foundation. This circumstance,
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
without more, would itself justify this Court in declining to extend the
discretionary relief of contempt, quite apart from the fact of substantial
compliance already noticed above.
16. In the totality of the above circumstances that the order dated 01.02.2023
stood modified on 01.01.2024; that compliance thereof, as modified, has
since been effected and duly placed on record through the compliance
affidavit dated 31.07.2025 and the calculation sheet dated 02.02.2026;
that the delay antecedent to such compliance was attributable to a bona
fide difficulty in implementation rather than to any contumacious
intent; and that the grievance now pressed by the Petitioner traces to a
subsequent and independent cause of action not forming part of the
order under consideration. This Court is unable to hold that the
Opposite Party/Contemnor is guilty of wilful or deliberate disobedience
of the order of this Court so as to warrant action under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
V. CONCLUSION:
17. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no case of
contempt made out against the Opposite Party. The Opposite
Party/Contemnor is accordingly exonerated of the charge of contempt,
and the present Contempt Application stands dropped and disposed of,
with a direction to the Opposite Parties to ensure that the benefit of 3rd
MACP with effect from 13.01.2018, as already computed, is credited to
the Petitioner without any further delay, if not already so credited.
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:27:54
18. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the
Petitioner from pursuing, before the appropriate forum and in
accordance with law, his separate grievance regarding change of option
for RACP and the consequential claim for its payment with effect from
01.02.2013, which grievance not having formed the subject matter of the
order dated 01.02.2023, is left open to be agitated independently.
19. The CONTC is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th July,, 2026
Page 11
