IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22397 of 2018 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ---- Sudhansu Nanda …. Petitioner -versus- Collector-cum-District Magistrate and Others …. Opposite Parties Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioner - M/s.Manas Pati, S.Kar, P.Das, S.S.Pati & B.P. Panda, Advocates For Opp. Parties - Mr.Satya Brata Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate. --- CORAM : MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD MR.JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 20.01.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. Aggrieved citizen is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 22.11.2017, whereby the contempt proceeding in his C.P. No.38 of 2003 for implementing the order dated 05.09.2002 entered in his O.A. No.1700 of 2002, has been dropped. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:- “As the respond authorities have filed compliance report showing impediment for which the applicant could not issued with a posting order, the order of the Tribunal is thus complied with and accordingly the C.P. is dropped. However, it is left open to the state respondents to consider posting of the applicant, if any vacancy arises in future. The applicant is also at liberty to agitate the matter, if there exists any fresh cause of action.” 2. SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL: (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that rightly or wrongly his O.A. No.1700 of 2002 having been favoured vide order dated 05.09.2002, the benefit of that order should reach the hands of his client; the efforts made by the Petitioner by filing the subject C.P. No.38 of 2003 have not yielded any benefit and on the contrary, the Tribunal took about fifteen years for passing another erroneous order, which is put in challenge in this Petition. He submits that the rule of law is upheld only when the party victorious in legal battle reaps the fruits of victory and not otherwise. So arguing, he seeks for voiding impugned order and further passing a punitive order against the Opposite Parties herein. (ii) Learned counsel draws attention of this Court to Collector’s letter dated 26.03.1999 at Annexure-2 wherein he had asked the Assistant Town Planner to appoint Petitioner as Driver and further to mark the letter of appointment to the Office of District Employment Exchange in addition to Collector’s Office. He also draws our attention to the ADM’s letter dated 07.07.1999 addressed to the CDMO to disengage the temporary Drivers, who were serving on daily wage basis, if any, and to report category wise vacancy or sponsoring the name of panel of Drivers maintained in the Office. In the light of this, he submits that there is gross violation of the original order of the Tribunal and therefore, the Contempt Proceeding could not have been dropped. 3. CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF OPS: (i) Learned AGA Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Opposite Parties resists the petition contenting that the order dated 05.09.2002 passed in O.A. No.1700 of 2002 does not contain any enforceable mandate as such; it is more in the nature of recommendation and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dropped the Contempt Proceedings. (ii) He also adds that all efforts were made to accommodate the Petitioner in the post of Driver or in other Group-D post; however, they did not bear fruit; the Driver posts are not being filled up for want of requisite number of vehicles, as the same are being outsourced since 2015. (iii) He further submits that some intra-departmental letters, which spoke positively, being anterior to the filing of OA, would not come to the aid of Petitioner. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition specifically stating that in the fitness of things no other relief also can be granted. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence as under and for the following reasons:- 4.1. The Tribunal vide order dated 05.09.2002 had disposed off Petitioner’s O.A. No.1700 of 2002. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:- “This O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Sambalpur to ascertain from the C.D.M.C. whether the applicant can be appointed against any unreserved vacancy at his disposal. The C.D.M.C. will give a clear reply to the Collector within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case he cannot be appointed by the C.D.M.O. then he may be adjusted in some vacancy at the disposal of the Collector available or anticipated which is earmarked for the general category and which it is permissible to fill up after observing the economy measures imposed by the Finance Department. It is expected that it would be possible to adjust him in some post either under the Collector or under the C.D.M.O. within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order” This order was sought to be implemented by instituting C.P. No.38 of 2003. The Tribunal, instead of enforcing the said order, has dropped the Contempt Proceeding with the observations that have already been quoted in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 4.2. AS TO HOW THE STRUCTURE OF ORDERS OF COURTS/TRIBUNALS SHOULD BE: (i) We fail to understand as to how the Tribunal could have dismissed the C.P. and thereby dropped the Contempt Proceeding, when the order dated 05.09.2002 was not complied with in letter & spirit. The litigants come to Court/Tribunal not for just getting some order howsoever they are texted; they come there with no joy in heart, and inevitably to have redressal to their legal grievances. No Court can say that its order is unenforceable, subject to all just exceptions into which the case of Petitioner does not fit. The order dated 05.09.2002 is ill-drafted, cannot be disputed. It is not desirable to employ the words like ‘if’, ‘but’, etc. in the operative portion of judgments/orders/decrees. The employment of such words, more often than not, yields scope for the other side to seek refuge under their shadow. When that happens, the very purpose of judicial process is defeated and faith of right thinking people in it will be shaken. It may lead to potential litigants taking law into their hands. All this will not augur well to the Rule of Law, which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution. The text of orders should be simple, clear-cut & easily intelligible, even to an average mind. If language is not properly employed, then what is said, is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what needs to be done would remain undone or is misdone. (ii) Rightly or wrongly, there is an order made by the Tribunal on 05.09.2002 by allowing Petitioner’s O.A. No.1700 of 2002. It is certainly not happily worded. However, when read in its entirety, sense and meaning can be derived from it. Judicial and quasi-judicial orders cannot be construed as Euclid’s Theorems. Court orders cannot be construed keeping common sense in cold storage, say the sages of law. 4.3. AS TO AWARDING DAMAGES BY WAY OF SECONDARY REMEDY WHEN PRIMARY REMEDY CANNOT BE GRANTED: (i) Judgment & orders are not meant for photo framing. Courts and Tribunals do exist for maintaining the practical rights of citizens. They cannot turn away a worthy cause by quoting some jurisprudential theories. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of U.S. Supreme Court, who in DAVIS v. MILLS1, has observed as under: “Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories…” An English Court in Ashby v. White2, awarded damages for infringement of the right to vote, even in the absence of demonstrable damage when vote was intended to a candidate who had eventually won the election by majority. The Court acted on the maxim injuria sine damno. Since, right to appointment that had become concrete by the Tribunal’s order dated 05.09.2002, case of the petitioner stands on a higher footing. There is infringement of the right and there is prejudice caused to the petitioner because of denial of appointment. Thus, there is injuria coupled with damage. (ii) When primary remedies in terms of orders that are entered after due adjudication, cannot be granted for one or the other reason, the Court or Tribunal cannot send back a victorious party in the legal battle, empty handed. All exercise should be undertaken to grant secondary remedy such as, damages, compensation or costs. This approach is not reflected in the impugned order of the statutory 1. 194 US 451 (1904). 2. 92 ER 126. Tribunal and that would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court. 4.4. AS TO WHAT DAMAGES/COMPENSATION TO BE AWARDED: (i) Pursuant to Employment Officer’s letter dated 17.01.1999, the petitioner had appeared for interview for the post of driver. Vide selection list dated 30.01.1999 three persons were selected and the petitioner was at Sl. No.3. In fact letter of appointment was issued as driver on 26.03.1999. The ADM, Sambalpur vide letter dated 07.07.1999 had asked Opposite Party No.2 to discontinue as daily wage drivers so that selected candidates could be appointed to the eventual vacancies. Despite that, nothing was done in the matter leading to the filing of OA No.1700 of 2002 which came to be disposed off with the direction as reproduced above. (ii) The OA was disposed off on 05.09.2002. Petitioner moved CP No.38 of 2003. The Tribunal took more than 14 years to dispose it off vide order dated 22.11.2017. It bewilders any sensible mind that a contempt proceeding would linger on for such a long period. In the meanwhile, the petitioner became age barred for any fresh appointment. Very strangely the order dropping the contempt proceedings can be said to have swallowed the order made in the OA itself. Metaphorically speaking, it is like a satellite swallowing the planet. An order made in a subsidiary or adjective proceeding cannot wipe out the order made in the substantive proceeding. (iii) It is not the case of Opposite Parties that there are no driver posts; in fact there are. The sanctioned posts are not abolished and therefore, vacancies do continue. Learned AGA contends that for want of vehicles in the department, these posts are not filled up and that the vehicles are outsourced since 2015. It may be a pragmatic and administratively viable decision. But what we fail to understand is, why the petitioner could not be accommodated in any post of driver or in any Group-D post all these years. It is not an ordinary case of defeating the legitimate expectation of a citizen but flouting the Tribunal’s order. The absence of any punitive consequence for an omission does not imply that the obligation to perform the act did not exist. The mere fact that no penalty has been imposed for a particular omission does not negate the existence of a legal duty to perform the act. If performance of that act as such becomes not possible, whatever be the circumstances not attributable to the seeker of such performance, alternate remedy has to be granted. Justice of the case warrants payment of damages/compensation which we quantify at Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh) only, in lieu of direction for appointment, because of pleaded difficulty of Opposite Parties in giving effect to Tribunal’s original order dated 05.09.2002. Page 10 of 10 We also noted that much water has flowed under the bridges since Tribunal made the order. In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in part. A Writ of Mandamus issues to Opposite Party No.1 to pay to the petitioner a lump sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(rupees five lakh) only within six weeks, failing which delay shall entail additional sum of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) only per day. The additional levy may be recovered personally from the erring officials, in accordance with law. Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 20th day of January, 2026/AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer