Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.      8206      OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29267 of 2011)

Sri Debendranath Nanda                          .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Shri Chandra Shekhar Kumar                       .... Respondent(s)

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

P.     Sathasivam,     J.   

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order  

dated 21.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Orissa at  

Cuttack in CONTC No. 923 of 2010 whereby the Division  

Bench dropped the contempt proceeding filed by the appellant  

herein against the Respondent herein.   

3)    Brief Facts:

a) On 03.02.1976, Sri Debendranath Nanda - the appellant  

herein was originally appointed as Sanskrit Pandit (Shastri  

Pandit) in Adarsa Ayurveda Vidyalaya, Cuttack, a Government  

1

Page 2

Aided Institution.  The appellant herein got promoted to the  

rank of Acharya Pandit w.e.f. 31.01.1987 in order to teach  

students of Acharya classes.  His promotion to the post of  

Acharya Pandit was approved by the State Government vide  

Order dated 06.12.1994 w.e.f. 31.01.1987.

b) In the year 1984, the State Government took a policy  

decision to introduce 10+2+3 pattern of education in Sanskrit  

Institutions functioning in the State of Orissa.  Accordingly,  

Upa-shastri (+2 standard) was introduced in Acharya  

Institutions.     

c) In the year 1987, the State Government introduced  

Shastri courses (+3 degree course) in the Sanskrit Institutions  

in the State of Orissa and it was also decided that the Acharya  

Courses which is equivalent to M.A. Degree will be taught only  

in the Departments of Sanskrit University and the said  

decision was to be implemented w.e.f. Academic Session 1987-

1988.  In pursuance of the same, the State Government, vide  

order dated 19.10.1987, decided that the institutions where  

Acharya Courses were taught up to the Academic Session  

1986-87 and the teachers having Acharya qualification which  

2

Page 3

is equivalent to M.A. Degree will be adjusted against the post  

of Lecturers which will be created for Upa-Shastri and Shastri  

courses in those institutions according to the staffing pattern  

prescribed by the Government.

d) In the year 1988, Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishwa  

Vidyalaya (Sanskrit University) took a decision to abolish  

Acharya Courses from the Sanskrit Institutions and it was  

decided that the same will be taught at the University level  

only.  In pursuance of the said decision,  Acharya Courses  

were abolished from Sanskrit Institutions in the State of  

Orissa w.e.f. 1991.  Consequently, the State Government took  

a decision to adjust surplus Acharya Pandits teaching Acharya  

Courses as Sanskrit Lecturers in Upa-Shastri and Shastri  

Institutions run by the State Government or in the Aided  

Institutions imparting 10+2+3 education in Sanskrit.  Since  

the appellant herein was found to be surplus in the Adarsa  

Ayurveda Vidyalaya, Cuttack, the State Government, vide  

order dated 16.03.1995, adjusted him against the existing  

vacancy of Head Pandit in Government Sanskrit Institution,  

Baripada.   

3

Page 4

e) The appellant herein represented before the State  

Government for his adjustment against the existing vacant  

post of Lecturer in Sanskrit Sahitya.  Vide communication  

dated 29.09.1995, Addl. Secretary to Government of Orissa  

recommended his case to the Director, Secondary Education,  

Orissa for adjustment in the light of the order dated  

19.10.1987 against the said vacancy.  During the pendency of  

the said representation, vide Order dated 06.06.1996, the  

State Government cancelled the order dated 16.03.1995 and  

the appellant was directed to join his former place of posting  

at Adarsa Ayurveda Vidyalaya, Cuttack and the arrear dues  

payable on account of salary for the intervening period from  

04.05.1995 to the date of joining in Government Sanskrit  

Institution, Baripada to the date of joining in Adarsa Ayurveda  

Vidyalaya, Cuttack had to be paid by the latter from out of the  

provisions of grant-in-aid and also that the above period will  

be treated as service spent on duty in Adarsha Ayurveda  

Vidyalaya, Cuttack.       

f) Aggrieved by such cancellation and non-payment of  

salary for the abovesaid period, the appellant herein filed  

4

Page 5

Original Application No. 1604 of 1996 before the Orissa  

Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar.  The Tribunal, vide  

order dated 10.07.1996, admitted the O.A. and stayed the  

cancellation order dated 06.06.1996 and directed the  

appellant herein to continue in the Government Sanskrit  

Institution, Baripada.  In pursuance of the said interim order,  

the State Government, vide order dated 21.11.1996, withdrew  

the departmental letter dated 06.06.1996 and requested the  

Director, Secondary Education, Bhubneshwar to hand over  

the charge of the office of the Head Pandit, Government  

Sanskrit Institution, Baripada to the appellant herein  

immediately.  The Tribunal, vide final order dated 21.05.1997,  

dismissed OA No. 1604 of 1996 holding that a teacher of the  

Aided Educational Institutions cannot be promoted to the post  

in Government Educational Institutions even though the State  

Government is paying salary of a teacher under direct scheme  

and cancelled the promotion of the appellant herein.   

g) Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein  

filed a petition being OJC No. 8397 of 1997 before the High  

Court.  By order dated 21.07.1999, the High Court disposed  

5

Page 6

off the petition directing the State Government to consider the  

case of the appellant herein following the judgment rendered  

in a similar case, viz., Smt. Kabita Manjari Kar vs. State of  

Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C. No. 1667 of 1992 disposed of on  

27.04.1995) of the same High Court.   

h) After several rounds of litigation including filing of  

various applications before the High Court for the  

implementation of its order dated 21.07.1997, various  

communication with the State Government, Department of  

School and Mass Education, filing of contempt proceedings  

before the High Court and lastly, the High Court, in CONTC  

No. 923 of 2010, by impugned order dated 21.07.2011,  

dropped the contempt proceeding against the respondent  

herein on the ground that the appellant herein has completed  

58 years of age and the dispute as to whether the appellant  

herein has retired from service or has to continue beyond 58  

years cannot be decided in a contempt proceeding.  

i)   Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant herein has  

preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before  

this Court.

6

Page 7

4) Heard Ms. Ambika Das, learned counsel for the appellant  

and Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, learned counsel for the  

respondent.

5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether  

the appellant has made out a case for any relief pursuant to  

the earlier orders of the High Court and decision at the level of  

the Government?  Apart from this, we have to consider  

whether the High Court was justified in dropping the contempt  

proceeding filed by the appellant?

6) According to the appellant, though the State Government  

approved him in the post of Acharya Pandit, due to policy  

decision, he was found surplus and by order dated  

16.03.1995, he was adjusted as Lecturer in Government  

Sanskrit Institution, Baripada (A Degree College) but the said  

order was cancelled by a subsequent order dated 06.06.1996.  

Challenging the same, the appellant filed an application being  

OA No. 1604 of 1996 before the State Administrative Tribunal,  

Bhubaneshwar.  The Tribunal, vide order dated 21.05.1997,  

dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein.  When  

this order was challenged by the appellant before the High  

7

Page 8

Court by filing a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 8397 of 1997,  

the same was disposed of by order dated 21.07.1997 directing  

the State Government to consider the case of the appellant  

following the judgment rendered in a similar case, viz., Smt.  

Kabita Manjari Kar (supra).  It is the grievance of the  

appellant that in spite of such direction and subsequent  

orders reiterating the same as well as the decision of the State  

Government (Minister concerned), School & Mass Education,  

who considered his case and directed to give him a post  

equivalent to that he was holding at Government Sanskrit  

Institution, Baripada, he was neither given necessary posting  

nor paid any salary for the same which necessitated him for  

filing contempt petition bearing CONTC No. 923 of 2010 before  

the High Court.  By impugned order dated 21.07.2011, the  

High Court disposed of the contempt petition by passing the  

following order:

“ 21.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel  for the State.

The dispute now arose as to whether the petitioner has  retired from service or he has to continue beyond 58 years  cannot be decided in a contempt proceeding.

8

Page 9

The contempt proceeding is according dropped.

     Sd/- B.P. Das,J.                 Sd/- SK Mishra,J.”

Questioning the same, the appellant has approached this  

Court.  Inasmuch as in the earlier part of our order, we have  

narrated the grievance of the appellant, various orders,  

directions etc., there is no need to repeat the same once again.

7) The claim of the appellant is mainly on the basis of the  

order  dated 21.07.1999 passed by the High Court in OJC No.  

8397 of 1997 filed by him which reads as under:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK ORDER SHEET

O.J.C. NO. 8397 OF 1997

Debendranath Nanda …….Petitioner

     Versus

State of Orissa & Ors. …….Respondents

ORDER

21.07.1999

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel  for State.

We dispose of the writ application with a direction to  opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s case  in the light of decision of this Court in Smt. Kabitamanjari  Kar vs. State of Orissa and Others (OJC No. 1667 of 1992  

9

Page 10

disposed of on 27.4.1995) after considering its applicability  to the facts of petitioner’s case.  Let the exercise be  undertaken within three months from the date of receipt of  our order.  The question of entitlement of the petitioner shall  be decided while adjudicating his case in the light of  Smt.  Kabita Manjari Kar’s case referred to above.

Requisites along with copy of the judgment referred to  above shall be filed for communication of our order to opp.  Party nos. 1 and 2 by Monday.

            Sd/- A. Pasayat, A.C.J. Sd/- B.P.Das,J.”

It is further seen that even after prolonged correspondence  

with the concerned Educational authorities, the said direction  

was not complied with and the appellant again mentioned the  

matter before the High Court.   On 19.07.2005, in the same  

petition, the High Court passed the following order:

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK ORDER SHEET

O.J.C. NO. 8397 OF 1997

Debendranath Nanda …….Petitioner

     Versus

State of Orissa & Ors. …….Respondents

ORDER

19.07.2005 O.J.C. NO. 8397 OF 1997

10

Page 11

Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and  Mr. Rath, learned Addl. Standing counsel for the School &  Mass Education Department.

Considering the submissions made by both the parties, this  Court directs the learned Addl. Standing counsel to file an  affidavit in compliance of the order passed by this Court on  21.7.1999 within ten days.

List this case on 2nd August, 2005.

Sd/- I.M. Quddusi,J.  Sd/- Pradip Mohanty,J.”

Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, Sri Gagan Kumar  

Dhal, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Orissa,  

School and Mass Education Department, Orissa,  

Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda filed an affidavit dated  

01.08.2005 stating that the order of the High Court dated  

21.07.1999 has been complied with.  Since according to the  

appellant, he was not given proper relief as directed by the  

High Court, particularly, in the light of Smt. Kabita Manjari  

Kar (supra), he made a representation to the State  

Government, School & Mass Education Department.  The  

State Government directed the concerned educational  

authorities to pass appropriate orders as directed by the High  

Court in Smt. Kabita Manjari Kar’s case expeditiously.  

11

Page 12

Even after several years, in spite of the decision at the level of  

the Minister, School & Mass Education, according to the  

appellant, he was not given proper posting and arrears of  

salary.  

8) It is also brought to our notice that the matter pertaining  

to the appellant was also placed before the High Court Level  

Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat on 19.12.2009 and on  

the assurance of the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the  

School and Mass Education Department that the order, if not  

complied with, will be complied by the end of May, 2010, the  

contempt proceedings were dropped, which reads as under:

“ORDER 19.12.2009   

This matter is placed before the High Court Level Permanent and  Continuous Lok Adalat.

It is undertaken by the learned counsel appearing for the School  and Mass Education Department that the order alleged to have  been violated, if not complied with as yet, shall be complied with  by the end of May, 2010 failing which it shall be construed to be  contempt of this Court.

A copy of this order shall be furnished to the office of the learned  Advocate General.

Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper  application.”

12

Page 13

The appellant has also brought to our notice an affidavit filed  

by one Sri Madhusudan Padhi, Commissioner-cum-Secretary,  

Higher Education Department, Government of Orissa dated  

20.07.2010  before the High Court.  The following information  

in paragraph 6 of that affidavit is relevant which reads as  

under:

“6.  That, it is most humbly submitted that after the said orders  were passed by the Hon’ble Court, this deponent took sincere  steps in the matter and necessary Govt. order has been obtained  in posting the petitioner as Lecturer in Sanskrit in Sri Jaganath  Veda Karmakand Mohavidyalaya, Puri.  Relevant Govt. orders  issued in favour of the petitioner in posting him as Lecturer in  Sanskrit is appended as Annexure A/1 for kind perusal of the  Hon’ble Court.”

By explaining the same as mentioned above, the officer  

tendered unconditional apology for the delay in complying with  

the order of the High Court.  

9) Apart from placing various communications/orders of the  

concerned Department, according to the appellant, he could  

not get any favourable order from the Department concerned.  

In such circumstance, as a last resort, the appellant moved  

the High Court by filing Contempt Petition being CONTC. No.  

923 of 2010.  The order dated 21.07.2011, passed by the High  

13

Page 14

Court in the contempt case dropping the contempt proceeding  

has already been extracted in the earlier part of our order.

10) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State  

and also perused the reply filed on behalf of the respondent.  

The copy supplied by the appellant relating to various orders  

issued by the Minister, School and Mass Education  

Department to the officer concerned shows that at the  

Government level the grievance of the appellant was properly  

taken care of and it is only at the Department level, the  

appellant was dragged from here and there by one reason or  

the other without giving him the posting at the appropriate  

place as directed by the Government.  Since we have already  

highlighted all the details in the earlier part of our order, there  

is no need to traverse the same once again and we are fully  

satisfied that for one reason or the other, the appellant was  

dragged for nearly 14 years and by efflux of time, now he has  

reached the age of 60 years, hence, as on date, there cannot  

be any positive direction for posting him at the appropriate  

place.  However, taking note of all the earlier orders of the  

High Court, undertaking given by the standing counsel,  

14

Page 15

affidavit filed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to  

Government and the decision of the Minister, School and Mass  

Education Department, we are satisfied that the appellant is  

entitled for equivalent monetary benefits as rightly observed by  

the State Government (Minister concerned) about the  

appellant’s entitlement, posting and other benefits at par with  

the case of  Smt. Kabita Manjari Kar (supra) and we hold  

that the interpretation of the Department is unacceptable.   

11) In view of the above discussion, though the appellant has  

made out a case for contempt, we feel that no purpose will be  

served by taking action against the erring officials, instead the  

appellant can be adequately compensated by way of monetary  

benefits.  Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner-cum-

Secretary, Higher Education Department, Bhubaneswar, to  

assign suitable post to the appellant and corresponding  

monetary benefits from the date on which the Department was  

asked to consider, i.e., 21.07.1999 and settle the same within  

a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of  

this judgment.   

15

Page 16

12) The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.  

The appellant is entitled to cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the  

Education Department.  

...…………….…………………………J.           (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

..…....…………………………………J.   (RANJAN GOGOI)  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER  22, 2012.             

16

Page 17