IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt proceedings are limited to determining willful disobedience of court orders and should not involve a re-evaluation of the merits of the underlying case.

JUDGMENT

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.

This intra-Court appeal arises out of a contempt proceeding putting to challenge an order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CONTC No.7275 of 2023.

2. We have heard Mr. Pravakar Behera, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Krishna Chandra Sahu, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

3. It would be apt to notice relevant foundational facts leading to filing of the present intra-Court appeal.

4. The respondent herein had joined as a Junior Store Keeper, initially under the administrative control of the Department of Commerce and Transport, Government of Odisha. When he was working as such at the Gopalpur Port Project, under a decision of the State Government, Gopalpur Port was privatized. Consequent upon such privatization, the employees who had become surplus were redeployed to their parent administrative department.

5. According to the respondent, he was relieved vide letter dated 28.10.2006 whereafter he reported before the Transport Commissioner, Orissa and was posted as Junior Clerk in the Office of RTO, Ganjam in the same grade in which he was initially appointed as Junior Store Keeper. On a plea that he had completed 25 years of service on 16.01.2009 without getting any promotion to the next higher rank, he claimed his entitlement to get benefit of 2nd ACP (Assured Career Progression) with effect from 17.01.2009 in accordance with Rule 14 of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (ORSP) Rules, 1998. Further, relying on a resolution of the Finance Department dated 06.02.2013, the respondent also claimed his entitlement to get RACP benefit with effect from 01.01.2013. He thus claimed three financial up-gradation after completion of 10years/20years/30 years of service from the date of his initial entry into the service in a single cadre in the absence of any promotion. Raising a grievance that he was not being extended the benefits of ACP/RACP as per rules and Finance Department Resolution, the respondent approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) by filing an original application giving rise to OA No.616(C) of 2019. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. No.616 (C) of 2019 by an order dated 24.07.2019 with a direction to opposite parties therein to consider the respondent's representation within a period of two months. As the said order of the Tribunal was not complied with, the respondent approached this Court by filing a writ petition registered as W.P.(C) No.3544 of 2020 for implementation of the said order. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 07.02.2020 directing opposite party No.1 therein to consider the respondent's representation within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of the order. The respondent filed CONTC No.3983 of 2020 alleging disobedience of this Court's order. The said CONTC No.3983 of 2020 was disposed of by an order dated 04.12.2020 granting further three months time to implement this Court's order as well as the order passed by the Tribunal. Later, the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa (appellant No.1 herein) rejected the respondent's claim for grant of ACP/RACP by an order dated 01.10.2021.

6. The said order dated 01.10.2021 was put to challenge by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.34597 of 2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge of this Court after having addressed the factual aspects, disposed of W.P.(C) No.34597 of 2021 by an order dated 08.02.2023. While quashing the said order dated 01.10.2021 passed by appellant No.1, learned Single Judge observed in paragraph-12 as under:

'12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful consideration of the rival contentions raised and further a conspectus of the materials placed before this Court for consideration, this Court after going through the impugned order dated 01.10.2021 under Annexure-12 is of the view that while rejecti