The court's power to punish for contempt is a safeguard for the functions of the judiciary, and willful violation of court orders constitutes contempt of court.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - All the above noted contempt petitions arise out of a common order dated 16.11.1999 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2559 (C) of 1999 and batch. The petitioners herein as applicants filed separate Original Applications, as mentioned above. Since the said Original Applications involved identical question of facts and law, they were allowed by the tribunal vide common order dated 16.11.1999. The said order having not been complied with, individual contempt petitions were filed before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal for compliance. But after abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal, those contempt petitions have been transferred to this Court and renumbered as above. Since common cause of action is involved, all the contempt petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this judgment, which will govern in all the contempt petitions.

2. The petitioners in the above noted contempt petitions were engaged in the work-charged establishment and were not brought over to regular establishment on completion of five years of service from the date of their entry. Their grievance is that if they are not appointed in any regular post, they will be deprived of the pension and retiral benefits ultimately. Therefore, they filed individual Original Applications seeking direction for regularization of their services. The said Original Applications were allowed keeping in view the Government of Odisha, Finance Department resolution dated 22.01.1965, by which it was decided for absorption of such employees after completion of five years in work-charged establishment and also Government of Odisha, Finance Department office memorandum dated 06.03.1990, which laid down that the employees under the work-charged establishment are entitled to get pension. The tribunal also took note that similar question had already been decided in O.A. No.1819 of 1996, wherein it was observed that the benefits of absorption in regular establishment would be available not only to serving work-charged employees, but also to those, who have already retired, and that taking into consideration of the same, the tribunal had already passed order in O.A. No.973 of 1989, O.A. No.920 of 1997 and O.A. No.2309 of 1997. As the petitioners are serving in the work-charged establishment and have stood in same footing, the tribunal held that they are also entitled to be absorbed in terms of the Finance Department resolution dated 22.01.1965. By holding so, the tribunal disposed of all the Original Applications by a common order dated 16.11.1999, the effective part of which runs as follows:

"In conformity with the order referred to above, I would like to direct the respondents to absorb the applicants in the establishment post with effect from the date they have completed 5 years of continuous service. After such absorption in the regular establishment, their annual increments as may be found due and admissible in the various revised pay scales be considered within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."

3. The tribunal, while issuing the above direction, fixed six months time for compliance. Though six months period was over, the said order was not complied with. Hence, the petitioners filed above mentioned individual contempt petitions before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal for compliance of order dated 16.11.1999. Instead of complying with the same, the State filed review petitions against the order passed by the tribunal in each of the Original Applications along with petitions for condonation of delay, which were numbered as mentioned above. The tribunal, vide order dated 13.07.2015, passed the following order:

"Law is well settled that review is maintainable, if there is any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, but not for the purpose of reassessing the evidence, which would amount to sitting on appeal.

Since the ground on which review has been sought for, amounts to reassess