Dipak Misra, J. - (1.)Heard Mr. Mishra learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bharat Sangal learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.)Assailing the impugned order dated 29.02.08 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Mr. Mishra learned counsel for the appellants has contended that such an order could not have been passed in a Miscellaneous Case No. 836 in W.P. (C) No. 8637 of 2004. Learned counsel has drawn out attention to the initial order passed in the writ petition. The relevant pat of the order reads as follows:
"The grievance being simple, I depose of the writ application directing the petitioner to file a representation before the Inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 3 highlighting all her grievances. If such a representation is filed, opposite party No. 3 is directed to scrutinize the same. On scrutiny, if it is found that any of the amount is payable to the petitioner, pass necessary orders for disbursement of the same in consonance with law. It is further directed that if the petitioner is, in fact, discharging her duties regularly and she is otherwise legally entitled to receive, the authorities shall also take steps for disbursement of the current salary. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation."

(3.)We have been apprised at the bar that after the aforesaid order came to be passed, the concerned authority of the State Government enter into intra-departmental communications but no order was passed with the time stipulated by the High Court. The said inaction on the part of the competent authority could have made the concerned officer liable for contempt, if any, but definitely the affected parties could not have filed the Miscellaneous Case and the High Court, in our view, should not have adverted to number of facets and pass an order. We have no iota of doubt in our mind that adoption of such a discursive method to issue directions in a Miscellaneous Case in a disposed of writ petition is not permissible.