Surendra Singh Bisht vs Secy. To Government Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 402 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           W.P (C) No. 40775 of 2021

Surendra Singh Bisht                .....                                    Petitioner
                                                            Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate
                                    Vs.
Secy. To Government of India        .....                              Opposite Parties
and others
                                                     Mr. P.K.Parhi, DSGI along with
                                                                 Mr. J. Nayak, CGC
             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                   MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                            ORDER

11.01.2023

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

03.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. J. Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel.

3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 865 of 2019.

4. Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the matter was heard and reserved by the Tribunal on 11.02.2021 and the order was passed on 09.07.2021, i.e. after five months, which is in violation of Rule-105 of Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, which requires that when the orders are reserved, the date for pronouncement not later than 3 weeks shall be fixed. The date so fixed shall not be changed except after due notice to all parties/counsel. He further contended that

similar matter had come up before this Court for consideration in Nityananda Barik v. Union of India and others, 2022 (Supp.) OLR - 289, wherein this Court has already held that if the order is passed dehors of Rule 105 of 1993 Rule, such order cannot sustain in the eye of law.

5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI does not dispute such position on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the matter was heard and reserved by the Tribunal on 11.02.2021 and the order was passed on 09.07.2021, which is in violation of Rule-105 of Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993. Therefore, the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 865 of 2019 cannot sustain in the eye of law and liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for re-adjudication. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

                                        (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                             JUDGE


                                       (B. P. SATAPATHY)
Arun                                          JUDGE