CONTC/1761/2026 of BILASHI BARIK Vs SOBHA SHARMA, I.A.S on 27 July 2026

ORDER

Order No. 27.07.2026

1.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Alleging violation of order dated 20th March, 2025 passed in WA No.2338 of 2024, this CONTC has been filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that W.P.(C) Nos.33459 and 23508 of 2023 were filed challenging the order issued by Under Secretary to Government of India in Ministry of Women and Child Development in which Women and Child Development/ Social Justice and Empowerment Department of all the States and Union Territories were directed for ‘Integration of Child Helpline- 1098 with ERSS-112 with telephonic short code 112 and 112 India App and their linkage with Child Protection Units (CPUs)’. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by learned Single Judge, vide common judgment dated 20th February, 2024 with a direction that the office order dated 23rd December,

// 2 //

2022 and office order dated 21st June, 2023 issued by the Under Secretary to Government of India and order dated 31st August, 2023 issued by the Head Services of Childline, India Foundation (CIF), Mumbai be modified to accommodate the Petitioners therein in their respective posts. It was made clear that the said order is specific to the Petitioners therein only and shall not be taken as a precedent. For ready reference, the relevant portion of judgment passed by learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:-

"77. This Court hereby directs that the office order dated

23.12.2022 and office order dated 21.06.2023, issued by the Under Secretary to Government of India and order dated 31.08.2023 issued by the Head Services of Childline India Foundation (CIF), Mumbai be modified with respect to accommodating the present petitioners in their respective posts. It is made clear that this order is specific to the present Petitioners only and shall not be taken as a precedent."

Assailing the same, the Union of India filed WA No.2338 of 2024, which was disposed of with the following direction vide order dated 20th March, 2025.

1. Mr. Roy, learned advocate and Senior Panel Counsel appears on behalf of appellant (Union of India). He submits, appellant’s grievance is limited to paragraph- 77 in impugned judgment dated 20th February, 2024. The paragraph is reproduced below. “77. This Court hereby directs that the office order dated 23.12.2022 and office order dated 21.06.2023, issued by the Under Secretary to Government of India and order dated 31.08.2023 issued by the Head Services of Childline India Foundation (CIF), Mumbai be modified with respect to accommodating the present petitioners in their respective posts. It is made clear that this order is specific to the present Petitioners only and shall not be taken as a precedent.”

2. Ms. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on

// 3 //

behalf of respondent nos.1 to 8. She submits, her clients have no objection to paragraph-77 in impugned judgment being interfered with. She submits, direction for modification of the orders be enlarged to apply to all instead of being specific to her clients. Mr. Roy submits, appellant will make the modification to be applicable to all.

3. Mr. Das, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of proforma respondents (State) and submits, unless the modifications are made, there cannot be implementation.

4. Direction by last sentence in paragraph-77 of impugned judgment is set aside in appeal. Impugned judgment is accordingly modified.

5. The appeal is disposed of.”

Pursuant to the said direction, the Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7, namely, Swapna Rani Jena, Ramesh Chandra Pradhan and Sayngaprava Dalei respectively filed W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2025 for a direction to extend the benefit of said order passed in the writ appeal in their favour. The said writ petition was disposed of on 3rd September, 2025 by learned Single Judge with the following order:-

“1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner though is eligible to get the benefit of the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.2338 of 2024 under Annexure-4, but the authorities are not extending the same.

4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that petitioner at no point of time has moved the authority seeking extension of the benefit in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Appeal.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, grants liberty to the petitioner to move O.P. No.2. It is observed that if any such application will be moved before O.P. No.2 within a period of 3(three) weeks hence, O.P. No.2 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of such application.

// 4 //

6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.”

Accordingly, Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 filed a representation before the Director, ICDS, Government of Odisha in Women and Child Development Department, Bhubaneswar. Said representation was rejected vide order dated 10th November, 2025 (Annexure-4) passed by Director, ICDS and Social Welfare, Government of Odisha. As the order passed in the writ appeal was not complied with, this CONTC has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

4. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the writ appeal was disposed of taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Union of India to make the direction of learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23508 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 33459 of 2023 applicable to all concerned. In spite of the same, the representation filed by Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 was rejected vide order under Annexure-4. Hence, it is a clear case of violation of order passed in WA No.2338 of 2024.

5. Mr. Panda, learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that the CONTC is not maintainable under law as the Petitioners were neither parties to W.P.(C) Nos. 23508 and 33459 of 2023 nor to WA No.2338 of 2024. Further, pursuant to observation made in WA No.2338 of 2024, Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 filed representation to consider their case and it has already been rejected vide order under Annexure-4. Thus, the Petitioners have no cause of action to file the instant CONTC.

6. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7

// 5 //

pursuant to the observation made in WA No.2338 of 2024, filed W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2025, which was disposed of on 3rd September, 2025 with a liberty to the Petitioners therein to make an application before the Director, ICDS and Social Welfare. The representation filed by Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 has already been rejected vide order dated 10th November, 2025. Without assailing the same, this CONTC has been filed.

7. Since the order of rejection of the claim of the Petitioners is still in vogue, the CONTC at the instance of Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 in particular and all other Petitioners in general, who are not parties to the any of the proceeding mentioned above, is not maintainable.

8. Accordingly, the CONTC is dropped and dismissed being not maintainable. Dismissal of the CONTC shall not be a bar for the Petitioners to work out remedy in accordance with law. s.s.satapathy

(K.R. Mohapatra)

Judge

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

Judge