Shri Dinabandhu Prusty vs Union Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 14779 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            W.P.(C) No. 8433 of 2019

Shri Dinabandhu Prusty             .....                                   Petitioner
                                                       Mr. K.C. Kanungo, Advocate
                                   Vs.
Union of India and others          .....                              Opposite Party
                             Mr. G. Mohanty, Sr. Panel Counsel for Union of India
            CORAM:
               ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
               MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                           ORDER

16.11.2023

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

08.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 788 of 2012.

4. Mr. K.C. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset contended that the matter was heard and reserved by the Tribunal on 13.02.2019 and the order was passed on 19.03.2019, i.e. after three weeks, 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. G. Mohanty, learned Sr. Panel Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, 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 13.02.2019 and the order was pronounced on 19.03.2019, which is in violation of Rule-105 of Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993. Therefore, the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 788 of 2012 under Annexure-1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is 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)
                                                                                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE


                Arun                                                                   (M.S. RAMAN)
                                                                                         JUDGE




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA

Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Nov-2023 13:31:21