JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. Tarkabeda Kumursingha High School, Tarakbeda in the district of Dhenkanal was notified to receive Block Grant from the State Government w.e.f. 01.04.2008 as per Grant-in-Aid Amendment Order, 2008. Thus, it became an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. And the institution itself, as well as its employees came to be governed under the various provisions of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner got appointment as Assistant Teacher (TGT Arts) on 16.04.1998 by the Managing Committee, by following due procedure of selection, pursuant to which he joined on 20.04.1998. His appointment was approved by the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal vide order dated 22.08.2009. Pursuant to such approval of appointment, he was receiving monthly salary regularly. 2. While the petitioner was in School, he suddenly got senseless due to blood clotting in brain. With the help of staff of the School, he was admitted to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. On diagnosis being made, it was found that the petitioner was suffering from brain haemorrhage. Subsequently, on 04.12.2014, he was shifted to a private hospital, where he undergone surgery on 16.12.2014 and was discharged on 26.12.2014. After recovery, he resumed his duty in the month of January, 2015. Thereafter, he was affected by left side hemiplegia, due to surgery, and became dependant on his family members. Due to such sickness, he was not able to remain lonely in such a remote distance area, where no communication facility was available for emergency. As a result, the petitioner filed a representation before the Minister of Education to transfer him to Basanti Manjari High School (Block Grant), Lahan in the district of Jajpur, which is near to Chandra Sekhar High School, where his wife was serving. He also made a representation before the Secretary, School and Mass Education Department and District Education Officer, Dhenkanal for his transfer/deployment to Sahadev Bidyapitha, or to any School of Dhenkanal Town, or to any School where the treatment facility is available. The said representations were not considered by the authorities on the ground that the petitioner was working as a Teacher in a Block Grant High School. 3. Then, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7493 of 2016. The said representations were not considered by the authorities on the ground that the petitioner was working as a Teacher in a Block Grant High School. 3. Then, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7493 of 2016. He specifically contended that even though he was serving in a Block Grant High School, with the passage of time the School became a fully aided institution and its employees were brought into the Orissa Aided Educational Institution Employees’ common cadre. As such, Inter-transferability Rules, 1979 is applicable to him. He further contended that the petitioner was similarly situated with the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 32631 of 2011, wherein this Court by order dated 05.09.2012 directed that the State Government would take a policy decision for transferring the teachers from Block Grant School, so that in case such dispute arose in the Block Grant Schools, steps could be taken for transferring the disturbing elements, and that the Government would make exception in that case and place Smt. Jyotirmayee Patnaik and Sanjay Kumar Khillar in two other different schools either by way of transfer or on deputation or by way of deployment. It was also contended that the said order, on being communicated to opposite party no.3 therein, has been complied with. Considering such contention and finding the petitioner to be similarly circumstanced with that of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 32631 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 1296 of 2016, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No. 7493 of 2016 by order dated 21.06.2016 directing the District Education Officer, Dhenkanal-opposite party no.2 herein to consider the case of the petitioner in a sympathetic manner and adjust him in a nearby school. But, due to non-compliance of the said order, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition stating, inter alia, that even though the petitioner communicated the order dated 21.06.2016 by filing a representation, the same was not complied with. 4. This Court, by order dated 19.10.2016, directed the petitioner to serve two extra copies of the contempt petition on the learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department by 20.10.2016 to enable him to obtain instructions in the matter. 4. This Court, by order dated 19.10.2016, directed the petitioner to serve two extra copies of the contempt petition on the learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department by 20.10.2016 to enable him to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, compliance affidavit was filed by opposite party no.2 incorporating the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by opposite party no.2 (Annexure-C/2) rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the status of the High School, where the petitioner is working, is a Block Grant High School and is receiving block grant w.e.f. 01.04.2008, and no rule has been framed by the Government of Odisha for transfer/adjustment of teachers from one Block Grant High School to another High School. 5. Mr. B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that the order of rejection dated 13.10.2016 passed by opposite party no.2, which has been annexed to compliance affidavit as Annexure-C/2 and copy of which has not been communicated to the petitioner, is an outcome of non-application of mind and, as such, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected mechanically without taking into consideration the orders passed in identical matters {W.P.(C) No. 32631 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 1296 of 2010} which were referred to in the writ petition, as well as the order passed by this Court on 21.06.2016. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Manas Kumar Chand and others v. Secretary, Education and Youth Services Department, Orissa, 82(1996) C.L.T. 309. 6. Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department justifying the order of rejection passed by the authority concerned stated that there is no provision available for transfer/deployment/adjustment of any Block Grant Teacher to another School. Therefore, no fault can be found with the authority in passing the order under Annexure-C/2. 7. As the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, this contempt petition is disposed of at this stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 8. The reason for petitioner’s approaching this Court by filing the writ petition, as is emanating from the records, was due to his illness, which required him for transfer/ deployment/adjustment in a similar Block Grant School, or any other suitable School, or any School of Dhenkanal Town, or any School where the treatment facility is available. 8. The reason for petitioner’s approaching this Court by filing the writ petition, as is emanating from the records, was due to his illness, which required him for transfer/ deployment/adjustment in a similar Block Grant School, or any other suitable School, or any School of Dhenkanal Town, or any School where the treatment facility is available. Though such grievance was made before the authority, the same was not considered. Consequentially, he approached this Court ventilating his grievances by filing W.P.(C) No. 7493 of 2016. On the basis of the pleadings available on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court, by observing that the petitioner is similarly circumstanced to that of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 32631/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 1296/2010, disposed of the said writ petition by directing the District Education Officer, Dhenkanal to consider the case of the petitioner in a sympathetic manner and adjust him in a nearby School. 9. A compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contemnors incorporating the order dated 13.10.2016, which has also been annexed as Annexure-C/2, by which the District Education Officer, Dhenkanal has disposed of the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 21.06.2016 in W.P.(C) No.7493 of 2016. Therein, not a single word has been whispered about the similarly situated persons, who have been extended the benefit pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.32631of 2011 and W.P.(C) No.1296 of 2010, and mechanically stated that the status of the High School, where the petitioner is working, is a Block Grant High School and is receiving Block Grant w.e.f. 01.04.2008, and that no rule has been framed by the Government of Odisha so far for transfer/adjustment of teachers from one Block Grant High School to another High School. In the writ petition, though there is a specific pleading that in compliance of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 32631 of 2011, one Smt. Jyotirmayee Patnaik has been transferred to Galapada Benuapal High School (Block Grant High School), the said fact has not been taken into consideration, while passing the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner. As such, the order itself is not in terms of the direction issued by this Court. As such, the order itself is not in terms of the direction issued by this Court. The decision taken in the name of compliance of the order passed by this Court is an outcome of whims and caprice, and under no stretch of imagination the same can be regarded as compliance of the order passed by this Court. More particularly, the compliance and obedience have to be in terms of the order, any deviation thereof cannot be termed as compliance of the order passed by this Court. 10. In Brahma Prakash Sharma and other v. The State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 10 , the apex Court held as follows: “It admits of no dispute that the summary jurisdiction exercised by superior courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the courts. It would be only repeating what has been said so often by various Judges that the object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by its weakened. 11. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1895 , the apex Court held as follows: “Contempt of Court jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction. It has to be used cautiously and exercised sparingly. It must be used to uphold the dignity of the Courts and the majesty of law and to keep the administration of justice unpolluted, where the facts and circumstances so justify.” 12. In T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 516 , the apex Court held as follows: “Contempt Jurisdiction is exercised for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and dignity of judicial system and also of the Courts and Tribunals entrusted with the task of administering delivery of justice. Power of contempt has often been invoked, as a step in that direction for enforcing compliance with orders of courts and punishing for lapses in the matter of compliance. Power of contempt has often been invoked, as a step in that direction for enforcing compliance with orders of courts and punishing for lapses in the matter of compliance. The majesty of judicial institution is to be ensured so that it may not be lowered and the functional utility of the constitutional edifice is preserved from being rendered ineffective. The proceedings for contempt of court cannot be used merely for executing the decree of the Court. However, with a view to preserving the follow of the stream of justice in unsullied form and in unstinted purity willful defiance with the mandate of the court is treated to be contemptuous. Availability of jurisdiction to punish for contempt provides efficacy to functioning of the judicial forum and enables the enforcement of the orders on account of its deterrent effect on avoidance.” 13. In view of settled position of law, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that subterfuges are not to be taken recourse to, while dealing with the direction of Courts, and commands are to be regarded as commands, and as such the authorities have to behave and conduct themselves in accordance with the commands of the institution. Therefore, the Courts do not entertain frivolous attitude and do not appreciate any treating the legal system in a way the authorities like. 14. In J. Vasudevan v. T.R. Dhananjaya, AIR 1996 SC 137 , the apex Court held as follows: “While awarding sentence on a contemner, the Court does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea of vindicating the prestige of the Court or to uphold its dignity, it is really to see that unflinching faith of the people in the Courts remain intact.” 15. This Court in Pratap Chandra Kar v. Major P.K. Patra and others (Original Criminal Misc. No.13/1996) held as follows: “No court should have any sadistic pleasure to hold a litigant being guilty of contempt of court and punish him. This Court in Pratap Chandra Kar v. Major P.K. Patra and others (Original Criminal Misc. No.13/1996) held as follows: “No court should have any sadistic pleasure to hold a litigant being guilty of contempt of court and punish him. At the same time, if a litigant with his undue arrogance desires to disobey the order of the court willfully and purposefully, the court will have to rise on the occasion and adjudicate the matter and pass such order as law demands and the situation warrants.” Similar view has also been taken by this Court in the case of Manas Kumar Chand and others v. Secretary, Education and Youth Services Department, Orissa, 82 (1996) CLT 309. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that laches have been committed by the opposite parties, while passing the office order dated 13.10.2016 under Annexure-C/2, in compliance of the order passed by this Court. As such, the contention raised by Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department, that order dated 13.10.2016 in Annexure-C/2 has been passed in compliance of order dated 21.06.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7493/2016, cannot be tenable in the eye of law. 17. In normal circumstances, this Court would have issued a rule of contempt to opposite party no.2, who has passed order dated 13.10.2016 in Annexure-C/2, with regard to the quantum of sentence. But, however, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as it is presently persuaded, this Court deems it proper to afford another opportunity to the opposite parties to take appropriate decision in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7493 of 2016 vide order dated 21.06.2016, that the authorities should apply their mind and pass an order keeping in view the orders passed in earlier W.P.(C) No.32631/2011 and W.P.(C) No.1296/2010. Consequentially, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 13.10.2016 under Annexure-C/2, having been passed without any application of mind, cannot sustain, and in view of opportunity given to the opposite parties, this Court hopes and trusts that the authorities would realize the same and take a decision afresh, by following the very purport and true spirit of the order dated 21.06.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.7493 of 2016, within a period of two weeks from today and report compliance to this Court. 18. 18. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the contempt proceeding is disposed of.