Gita @ Geeta Rani Biswas And vs Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8957 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P.(C) No.3763 of 2021
            Gita @ Geeta Rani Biswas and
            another                            ....             Petitioners
                                          Mr. D.P. Dhalsamanta, Advocate
                                      -versus-
            Union of India and others          ....            Opp. Parties
                                          Mr. Chandrakanta Pradhan, CGC

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
                                      ORDER

Order No. 26.08.2021

05. 1. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

2. The challenge in the present petition issued an order dated 16th December, 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (CAT) dismissing the M.A. No.1004 of 2019 filed under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (A.T. Act).

3. Original Application No.902 of 2006 was filed by the husband of the present Petitioner No.1 seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to grant him the 1st and 2nd financial up- gradations and release arrears. It was disposed of by the CAT on 2nd April, 2009. That order was upheld by this Court by order dated 6th January, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.255 of 2010. A Review Petition filed by the Opposite Parties was disposed of by this Court by order dated 28th August, 2019.

// 2 //

4. Thereafter alleging non-compliance of the order dated 2nd April, 2009, the Petitioner filed aforementioned M.A. in the CAT under Section 27 of the AT.

5. In response to the said application, the Department filed a reply enclosing the order dated 11th June, 2020 which according to them was in purported compliance of the order passed in O.A. No.902 of 2006.

6. However, according to the Petitioner the said order is not in compliance with the earlier direction of this Court.

7. The CAT in the impugned order referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (1996) 6 SCC 291, and held that if the Petitioner was not satisfied with the compliance of the order passed by the Department, he could challenge it in separate proceedings.

8. The Court fails to understand how the impugned order is prejudicial to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has the liberty institute separate substantive proceedings to challenge the order dated 11th June, 2020 passed by the Opposite Parties. The Court finds no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(B.P. Routray) Judge KC Bisoi