IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.8802 of 2023 Bhagaban Palei …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Kaushik Swain, Advocate -Versus- Ms. Aswathy S., IAS, Principal Secretary to Government in School and Mass Education Department and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 30.01.2026 04. 1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19th December, 1998 passed by the Inspector of School was allowed upon quashing and setting aside the same with consequential direction for absorption of the petitioner in terms of the circular dated 19th August, 1996 within a period of four weeks from date. It was categorically observed that the petitioner will not be entitled to arrears of back wages for the period during which he was out of service. Page 2 of 3 1.1. Apparently, the implementation of the said order could not be secured within the stipulated time and a contempt petition being CONTC No.8132 of 2022 was filed which was dropped by extending the period within which such order should be implemented by the alleged contemnors. Despite the extension of the time, there appears to be a delay in securing the compliance of the said order which constrained the petitioner to file the instant contempt petition again. 2. Without delving to go deep into the nuances of the law relating to the concept of frequent contempt petitions to be filed, we squeeze our consideration to a due implementation of the said order as the authority cannot undermine the majesty and the sanctity of the Court and its orders/directions passed in the judicial proceedings. We are not unmindful of the proposition of law that the delayed compliance at times tantamount to a contemptuous act. Yet, the Courts in some deserving cases and on the basis of a plausible explanations having offered in this regard, may not proceed to punish the alleged contemnors for delayed implementation, more particularly, when the compliance is insured by the alleged contemnors. This is one of the example where the authorities have complied the said order and the petitioner has been absorbed into service with notional effect from 14th August, 1997. Page 3 of 3 3. Since the petitioner was not rendering any services nor discharging the duties, which is reflected from the order dated 2nd August, 2022, we do not find the course of action adopted by the alleged contemnors. However, we do not intend to make any conclusive observations thereupon as the jurisdiction exercised by the Court under Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised within a limited compass. 4. In view of the fact that the compliance has already been made, we do not intend to proceed further. The contempt petition is, thus, dropped. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge S.K. Guin/PA