Orissa High Court
WA/1286/2025 of DR.NABEEN KUMAR RATH Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 13 July 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1286 of 2025 Dr. Nabeen Kumar Rath and others …. Appellants Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 03. ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1286 of 2025
Dr. Nabeen Kumar Rath and others
….
Appellants
Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha
….
Respondent
Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
03.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
13.07.2026 The Appellant-Employees in the cadre of Demonstrator have filed this Intra-Court Appeal for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 08.01.2025, whereby their W.P.(C) No.212 of 2025 has been negatived. Essentially on the ground as stated in para-3 thereof, which reads as under: “3. Since the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking similar benefits which was allowed vide order dated 10.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.10938 of 2017 and Contempt so filed was also dropped, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to raise any further claim as has been made in the present Writ Petition.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently argues that the learned Single Judge is not justified in denying relief to his clients especially when, there was already an order dated 10.03.2023 made in their earlier W.P.(C) No.10938 of 2017
merely because the contempt proceeding for implementing the same were dropped.
3. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the Respondent- State opposes the petition pressing into service the doctrine of res judicata and also acquiescence, inasmuch as the contempt proceeding came to be dropped and the same has attained finality, there being no further challenge thereto.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. In our considered opinion, learned Single Judge was not justified in denying relief to the Appellants, who already had secured a favourable order dated 10.03.2023 in their earlier W.P.(C) No.10938 of 2017 merely because the contempt proceedings launched for implementation of the said order were dropped for xyz reasons. It hardly needs to be stated that the contempt proceedings are dropped for several reasons and that would not amount to discharging the obligation created by the Court order, for implementing which, such contempt proceedings were instituted. This view gains support from Apex Court decision in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689.
4.2. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the US Supreme Court, who said in DAVIS v. MILLS, 194 US 451 (1904) that, Writ Courts do exist for doing justice under the provisions of Constitution and not for maintaining jurisprudential theories. If a worthy cause is brought, Courts cannot send back the worthy litigant empty handed.
In the above circumstances, this Appeal is disposed off directing the Respondent to implement the order dated 10.03.2023 entered in W.P.(C) No.10938 of 2017 within an outer limit of three months, failing which the fresh cause of action for contempt proceedings would accrue and that would work costlier to the Contemnors. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash ) Judge
Anisha
Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Jul-2026 15:32:40 Signature Not Verified