Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.5971 of 2025 Purna Chandra Samal ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Laxmikanta Mohanty -versus- Anu Garg, IAS, Secretary to Govt. Department of Water Resources, Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties/Contemnors Represented by Adv. - Mr. S.Behera, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 03.07.2026 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Learned counsel for the State files a copy of the instruction letter dated 01.07.2026 issued by the Office of the Superintending engineer, Head Works Division, Samal. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof be served on learned counsel for the Petitioner. 3. On perusal of letter No.4883/WE dated 01.07.2026, it appears that the Opposite Party-Contemnors have categorically mentioned in Para-3 & 4 as follows:- “In this regard, the service of the petitioner has been regularized notionally taking into account various revision of pay scales that were introduced to facilitate grant of pension & pensionary benefits under the provisions of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 against the supernumerary post of Watchman, Page 2 of 3. Regular (Wages) created from 01.09.1998 to 30.06.2019 in the time scale of pay of Rs.2550- 55-2660-60-3200/- so as to implement the order dated 30.06.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court vide this office order No. 28/2026 dt.19.03.2026 & sanctioned the provisional pension in favour of the petitioner vide sanction No. 202675982744, dtd. 17.04.2026. That, it is further submitted that, this office disbursed the provisional pension w.e.f 01.07.2019 in favour of the petitioner vide This Office Bill No. 109/2026 and also this Office disbursed the Un- Utilized leave in favour of the petitioner vide This Office Bill No.HWD-76/2026-27.” 4. In view of the category stand and letter dated 01.07.2026, this Court is of the view that the order passed by this Court which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the State’s SLP has been implemented by the Opposite Parties. 5. Accordingly, the Contempt proceeding is dropped by granting liberty to the Petitioner to revive the same in the event it is found that the order passed by this Court has not been fully implemented by the Opposite Parties. 6. Accordingly, the CONTC is dropped. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Page 3 of 3.