IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.6017 of 2025 Suvendu Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Banshidhar Satapathy , S.satapathy, B.n.parida -versus- Satya Prakash Das, Zonal ..... Opposite Manager, OSSC Ltd., Cuttack Party/Contemnor Represented by Adv. - anshuram mishra CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 25.06.2026 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Contemnor-Opposite Party that pursuant to the interim order dated 06.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.5428 of 2023, one post of Junior Operator (Group C) belonging to the SC category has been kept reserved as directed by this Court. On such ground, learned counsel for the Contemnor contended that the Contemnor-Opposite Party has not willfully and deliberately violated this Court’s order, therefore, the allegation made in the contempt application is baseless. He further submitted that the Petitioner, who was engaged through an outsourcing agency, opt not to continue in duty which was not informed to the Page 1 of 2. Contemnor by such outsourcing agency. Therefore, the Contemnor cannot be held responsible for such conduct of the Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, objected to the contention of the learned counsel for the Contemnor to the effect that the Petitioner is ready and willing to work, but he has not been given work by the outsourcing agency. He further submitted that the Petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duties by the Contemnor-Opposite Party. 4. Considering the fact that there exists a factual dispute, this Court does not want to interfere with the same as the main writ application is pending. In such view of the matter, the Contempt application is being disposed of by the granting liberty to the Petitioner to move the assigned Bench for an early disposal of the pending writ application. However, in the meantime, it is open to the Petitioner to move the competent authority for taking him back in duty. In the event any such application is made by the Petitioner, the same shall be duly considered by the competent authority. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the CONTC is dropped. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 2 of 2.Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Jul-2026 11:41:27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.6017 of 2025 Suvendu Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Banshidhar Satapathy , S.satapathy, B.n.parida -versus- Satya Prakash Das, Zonal ..... Opposite Manager, OSSC Ltd., Cuttack Party/Contemnor Represented by Adv. - anshuram mishra CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 25.06.2026 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Contemnor-Opposite Party that pursuant to the interim order dated 06.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.5428 of 2023, one post of Junior Operator (Group C) belonging to the SC category has been kept reserved as directed by this Court. On such ground, learned counsel for the Contemnor contended that the Contemnor-Opposite Party has not willfully and deliberately violated this Court’s order, therefore, the allegation made in the contempt application is baseless. He further submitted that the Petitioner, who was engaged through an outsourcing agency, opt not to continue in duty which was not informed to the Page 1 of 2. Contemnor by such outsourcing agency. Therefore, the Contemnor cannot be held responsible for such conduct of the Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, objected to the contention of the learned counsel for the Contemnor to the effect that the Petitioner is ready and willing to work, but he has not been given work by the outsourcing agency. He further submitted that the Petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duties by the Contemnor-Opposite Party. 4. Considering the fact that there exists a factual dispute, this Court does not want to interfere with the same as the main writ application is pending. In such view of the matter, the Contempt application is being disposed of by the granting liberty to the Petitioner to move the assigned Bench for an early disposal of the pending writ application. However, in the meantime, it is open to the Petitioner to move the competent authority for taking him back in duty. In the event any such application is made by the Petitioner, the same shall be duly considered by the competent authority. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the CONTC is dropped. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 2 of 2.Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Jul-2026 11:41:27