Shasikanta Rout & Another vs Union Of India & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4778 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          W.P.(C) No.12996 of 2023

Shasikanta Rout & Another             .....                              Petitioners
                                                    Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate
                                      Vs.
Union of India & Others               .....                         Opposite Parties

                                                  Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
                                                            Mr. S.B. Panda, CGC
             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN

                                             ORDER

01.05.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

01.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the opposite parties.

3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 07.04.2022 passed in O.A. No. 260/00246 of 2017 under Annexure-1, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioners, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to regularize their services within a stipulated time.

4. Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, contended that though the judgment was reserved by the tribunal on 15.02.2022, but the same was pronounced on 07.04.2022, which is in gross violation of rules governing the field. As such, without any application of mind, the tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners by dismissing the original application.

5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India for

the opposite parties states that the tribunal is well justified in passing the order impugned and, as such, this Court should not interfere with the same at this stage.

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 15.02.2022 and pronounced the same 07.04.2022 beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 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). Thereby, the judgment so passed by the tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

7. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 07.04.2022 passed in O.A. No. 260/00246 of 2017 under Annexure-1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same 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.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

(M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Laxmikant

LAXMIKANT Digitally LAXMIKANT signed by

MOHAPATR MOHAPATRA Date: 2023.05.01