Orissa High Court
Umesh Chandra Maharaj vs Union Of India And Others on 11 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 23535 of 2021
Umesh Chandra Maharaj ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate
Vs.
Union of India and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K.Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. J. Nayak, CGC &
Mr. S. Behera, Advocate (O.P.4)
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.
04.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K.
Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. J. Nayak, learned Central
Government Counsel and Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 4.
3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the
order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 657 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
21.01.2021 and the order was passed on 19.04.2021, i.e. after three
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 as well as Mr. S. Behera learned
counsel appearing for the opposite party no.4 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 21.01.2021 and the
order was passed on 19.04.2021, which is in violation of Rule-105 of
Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice,
1993. Therefore, the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 657 of
2019 and connected Original Applications 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
