National Aluminium Company Ltd vs Rajib Kumar Bisoi And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10649 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P (C) No. 16302 of 2019

National Aluminium Company Ltd.,        .....                                 Petitioner
Damanjodi, Koraput
                                                                   Mr. T. Mishra, Adv.
                                        Vs.
Rajib Kumar Bisoi and others            .....                           Opposite Parties
                                                    Mr. N.R. Routray, Adv. [O.P.No.1]
                                                   Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC [O.P.No.4]
             CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                 MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

                                               ORDER

02.09.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

09.

2. Heard Mr. T. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/80 of 2017 under Annexure-6.

4. Mr. T. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that though the judgment was reserved by the tribunal on 01.05.2019, but the same was pronounced on 30.07.2019, which is in gross violation of rules governing the field.

5. Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 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 01.05.2019 and pronounced the same on 30.07.2019 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 30.07.2019 passed in O.A. No. 260/80 of 2013 under Annexure-6 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

Ashok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 02-Sep-2023 14:21:24