Mukunda Chandra Senapati vs State Of Orissa And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Samantray, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and submits, alleged contemners have willfully and deliberately violated order dated 13th September, 2017 passed in O.A no.4232 (C) of 2012 by Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Said Tribunal was abolished by notification dated 2nd August, 2019.

Said notification dated 2nd August, 2019 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) in section 4 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Said Act by section 17 provides for powers of a Tribunal to punish for contempt. The power is the same as that of High Court. He relies on judgment dated 7th June, 2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Odisha Administrative Tribunal Bar Association and others vs. Union of India and others. By said judgment in paragraph 139, the following was stated:-

" 139. In light of the above conclusion, since all the pending cases before the OAT would automatically stand transferred to this Court, the interim order dated 7th August, 2019 is no longer required to be continued. It is accordingly vacated."

On query from Court he submits, Odisha Administrative Tribunal Bar Association (supra) holds the field.

Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemners and submits, alleged contemner no.5 is Principal Accountants General (A & E), who sanctions pension. Said authority objected to the sanction on ground that it is not permissible under rule 66 of Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

This Court has before it an order passed by the Tribunal. Whether the order is correct or incorrect is not to be seen in contempt jurisdiction. Alleged contemner is granted adjournment to either comply or be heard in defence of alleged contempt.

List on 2nd December, 2021.

....................................