The Division Bench's direction for reinstatement was binding and the impugned order of re-engagement was found to be in clear violation of the court's direction.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - By way of this petition the Petitioner has sought for the following relief:

"Relief(s) sought for:-

In view of the facts stated in para-6 above, the applicant prays for the following relief(s):-

(a) The Original Application be allowed;

(b) The order of fresh engagement dt.21.10.2017 under Annexure-13 be modified to the extend reinstating the Applicant in service w.e.f. 28.2.2013 with regularization of service w.e.f. 2013.

(c) The Respondents be directed to release the arrears of salary from 28.2.2013 till date of reinstatement dt.21.10.2017.

(d) Such other order/orders be passed granting complete relief to the applicant."

2. Short and undisputed background involved in the case is that pursuant to an advertisement vide Annexure-1 issued by the Opposite Party No.2 for filling up of the posts of teacher in High Schools, the Petitioner applied against the T.G.(C.B.Z) post and appears to have been selected against such post. Consequent upon her selection the Petitioner was posted in the P.N. High School, Dolasahi vide Annexure-2. While the Petitioner was continuing as such, on 3.01.2013 the State Government created 609 nos. of T.G. post for regularization of contractual teachers like that of the Petitioner. It appears, at the relevant point of time list of contractual teachers was also prepared and in the said list the name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl.No.8 (Annexure-4). It further appears, while the Petitioner's case was to be considered for regularization, due to the Petitioner remaining three days unauthorized absent on 17.11.2012 the Petitioner was issued with show cause notice vide Annexure-5. Pursuant to such notice dated 17.11.2012, on 19.12.2012 the Petitioner submitted her response explaining the reason of absent for three days. It is alleged that in absence of any inquiry the Petitioner was issued with a notice to respond on the proposed punishment for disengagement vide Annexure-8. Pleadings further disclose that on 25.02.2013 the Petitioner submitted the reason of unauthorized absence. Basing on the response filed by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.3 on 28.02.2013 passed an order of disengagement of the Petitioner. Challenging the order of disengagement vide Annexure-9 the Petitioner instituted an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench vide O.A. No.1062 (C) of 2013. The above original application was finally disposed of on contest of the parties, where the State Administrative Tribunal came to observe that the punishment of termination /disengagement on account of three days of unauthorized absence is highly disproportionate and on this observation alone the Tribunal remanded the matter to the authority for reconsideration of such issue. It is needless to observe here that this order of the Tribunal has not been challenged by any of the parties and undisputedly the Tribunal disapproved the order of disengagement. It, therefore, appears, both the parties have accepted the said order and for the observation made the Tribunal, it was necessary on the part of the authority to consider the case of the Petitioner on any punishment other than disengagement. But however, on reconsideration of the case of the Petitioner depending on the direction of the State Administrative Tribunal in disposal of the O.A. No.1062(C) of 2013, the Opposite Party No.3 by its order dated 31.12.2015 vide Annexure-11 reiterated its earlier order of disengagement. The Petitioner here claimed that this order was not, however, communicated to her for long time. In the meantime the Petitioner undertook the exercise of contempt vide C.P. No.163 (c) of 2016. It appears, in the contempt proceeding the contemnors filed their response thereby enclosing the order of rejection dated 31.12.2015 vide Annexure-11. It is after coming to know about the order of rejection through the contempt proceeding and its reiteration of the disengagement order, it appears, the Petitioner again approached