Swapan Kumar Das vs Sail
2023 Latest Caselaw 370 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           WP(C) No. 41722 of 2021

Swapan Kumar Das                        .....                                   Petitioner
                                                              Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate

                                        Vs.
SAIL, New Delhi & Ors.                  .....                             Opposite Parties
                                               Mr. N.K. Sahu, Advocate for OPs No.3 & 4
             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY


                                               ORDER

10.01.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

04.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.3 and 4.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 09.07.2021 passed in T.A. No. 20 of 2015 under Annexure-13, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

4. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that though the order was reserved by the tribunal on 04.03.2021, but the same was pronounced on 09.07.2021, which is in gross violation of the rules governing the field. It is contended that since the order was passed on 09.07.2021 beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 105 (b) of the C.A.T. Rules of Practice 1993, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nityananda Barik v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 16659 of 2014 disposed of on 05.05.2022).

5. Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.3 and

4 contended that this Court may make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the order has been passed beyond the time stipulated.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that admittedly the tribunal heard the matter and reserved the same on 04.03.2021 and pronounced the order on 09.07.2021, that is to say beyond the time limit prescribed under Rule 105 (b) of the C.A.T. Rules of Practice 1993, wherein it has specifically prescribed that the order shall be pronounced within three weeks from the date of reserve. This question is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nityananda Barik v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 16659 of 2014 disposed of on 05.05.2022). Therefore, since there is non-compliance of the provisions contained under Rule 105 (b) of the C.A.T. Rules of Practice 1993 in delivering the order dated 09.07.2021 in T.A. No. 20 of 2015 under Annexure-13, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for its fresh disposal by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

(B.P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE GDS