[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Krushna Chandra Rath vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 2 December, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No. 26510 of 2025
Krushna Chandra Rath .... Petitioner
Represented by -
Mr. Arnav Behera, Advocate.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Represented by -
Mr. P.K. Mohanty,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 02.12.2025
(Hybrid Mode)
05. 1. The Petitioner was working as President of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. Annexure-2 to
the writ petition, i.e. Office Order dated 05.05.2025 notifying the
superannuation of the Petitioner on attaining the age of 65 years is the
subject matter of our scrutiny in view of the judgment dated 21.05.2025
(under Annexure-3) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar
Limaye and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1193.
2. In Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar (supra), considering the
SLP (C) No. 25612 of 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued direction
as follows (from SCC Online Print) -
"DIRECTIONS
102. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we deem it fit to pass the
following directions, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 142
of the Constitution :-
1) The Union of India is directed to file an affidavit on the feasibility of a
permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of
a Consumer Tribunal or a Consumer Court, within a period of 3 months
from today, on the touchstone of the constitutional mandate. Such a forum
shall consist of permanent members, including both staff and the Presiding
officers. The Union of India may also consider facilitating sitting Judges
to head the fora. The strength may be increased adequately.
2) In view of the submission made on behalf of the Union of India, we
direct the Union of India to notify the new Rules within a period of 4
months from the date of this Judgment, strictly adhering to the following :
a. The earlier view of this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra, MBA-III
(supra) and MBA -IV (supra), with respect to the tenure of office
being five years, being both logical and necessary, must be
incorporated in the new Rules to be notified.
b. The composition of the Selection Committee shall be such that the
members from the Judiciary must constitute the majority. To achieve
the same, the Selection Committee shall comprise two members from
the Judiciary, one of whom shall be the Chairperson, and the third
member from the Executive, all of whom shall have voting rights.
However, this shall not preclude the concerned Secretary from being
an ex-officio Member of the Selection Committee, without voting
rights. The proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 6(1) of the
2020 Rules, may be accordingly modified.
c. No written examination, followed by a viva voce, shall be required for
appointment and reappointment to the posts of President of the State
Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and
President of the District Commission.
d. A written examination followed by a viva voce shall be required only
for appointment and reappointment to the posts of Non-Judicial
Members of the State Commission and Members of the District
Commission.
e. The written examination for appointments to the State and District
Commissions shall be conducted in consultation with the respective
State Service Commissions.
f. The proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 4(1) of the 2020
Rules, as recorded by us in Para 72 of this Judgment, that the
qualification for appointment to the post of President of the District
Commission, shall be restricted to either a serving or a retired District
Judge, stands accepted.
Upon notification of the new Rules by the Union of India, all the
States are directed to complete the process of recruitment under the same,
within a period of 4 months from the date of the notification of the said
Rules.
As regards the status of appointment to the posts of Presidents and
Members of the State and District Commissions, we are pleased to issue
the following directions :
SUMMARY OF THE RELIEFS
Category of Persons Relief
1. xx xx
2. xx xx
3. Presidents and Members of the They shall be allowed to complete
State and District Commissions their tenure in entirety. In the event
who have been appointed and of their tenure ending before the
serving prior to Limaye - I completion of the recruitment
(supra) process under the new Rules to be
notified, their appointment shall be
allowed to continue until the
completion of the said recruitment
process.
4. Presidents of the State and (a) Those who are appointed and
District Commissions, and the serving shall be allowed to
Judicial Members of the State complete their tenure in entirety.
Commission, in other States, In the event of their tenure
with/without having given the ending before the completion of
written examination followed the recruitment process under
by a viva voce. the new Rules to be notified,
their appointment shall be
allowed to continue until the
completion of the said
recruitment process.
(b) Those who have been selected,
but not appointed, on account of
the concerned States having
stayed the appointment process
during the pendency of these
appeals, shall be appointed to
the respective post, and shall be
allowed to continue in office till
the entirety of their tenure.‖
5. xx xx
6. xx xx
7. xx xx
3. Vide order dated 29.10.2025 it was observed by this Court that -
"1. Despite the clear directions issued by us by order dated
25.09.2025 and thereafter by order dated 15.10.2025,
reiterating the order dated 25.09.2025, no response is coming
from the opposite parties regarding compliance of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted in order
25.09.2025."
In the said order dated 29.10.2025, the submission of the learned
Additional Standing Counsel made on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
authorities, was recorded as hereunder -
"2. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Additional
Standing Counsel instead of addressing us regarding
compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
seeks further time to file counter."
4. After hearing the learned Additional Standing Counsel, we had
passed further orders on 29.10.2025, which are reproduced herein -
"3. It is a matter of concern that the opposite parties are sitting
over a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with
specific directions which we have clarified in our order dated
25.09.2025 after we had issued notice.
4. The learned counsel for the State shall obtain specific
instruction from the opposite party No.1-Principal Secretary to
Government, Food, Supplies & Consumer Welfare Department,
regarding the manner of compliance of the order passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the
order dated 25.09.2025 is within the notice of the opposite
parties as has been communicated to them. The said order is
also available at official website of this Court.
5. On being asked regarding compliance of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court's order, the learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State instead of answering the said query
submits that he is filing counter. We have also clarified to him
that regarding compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court there cannot be any counter after the matter has
been disposed of and a direction has been issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
List on 10th November, 2025 under the same heading."
5. Thereafter the matter was again listed on 10.11.2025, when the
matter was adjourned to be listed on 19 th November, 2025, and thereafter
the matter is listed today.
It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the opposite parties, the matter is taken
up for final hearing, as it involves compliance of the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. We have brought to the notice of the learned Addl. Standing Counsel
appearing for the State to our earlier order dated 25.09.2025 as well as
paragraphs 84 and 102 of the judgment passed in Ganeshkumar
Rajeshwarrao Selukar (supra). After the learned Addl. Standing Counsel
had completed his submission, we had pointedly asked regarding the
counter affidavit filed by the State and whether in the affidavit the opposite
parties have dealt with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph-102 of the judgment and compliance of the said directions.
7. In response, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel relies on paragraphs
6, 7, 8, 10, 13 & 14 of the Counter Affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.1. The
said paragraphs are reproduced herein -
"6. That, the Consumer Protection (QMPTR) Rules, 2020, as
amended from time to time is the guiding statute for the service
conditions of the adjudicators of the consumer courts. The
petitioner has refrained from the facts that an individual cannot
exhaust the age limit, as it is a hard cap on their employment or
tenure; until and unless any exact rules and potential allows
them for such extensions, rather, has tried to drag advantage of
the operative part of the Judgment dated 21.05.2025
delineating the continuation of tenure, which is misconceived
and misconstrued against the jurisprudence of the said
judgment. As such, regarding reinstatement as prayed by the
petitioner in his petition, it is stated that there is no such
existing provision in the above rules for reinstatement of a
president after completion of his tenure. As such, the order
dt.05.05.2025 of this Department, disputed by the petitioner,
has been made by force of a statutory rule and therefore not
arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
7. That, pending notification of the new Rules by the
Central Govt. regarding the recruitment of the President &
Members of Consumer Forum pursuant to the judgment dated
21.05.2025 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Kumar Rajeshwarrao
Selukar & Ors. v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. (Civil
Appeal No. 9982 of 2024) incorporating the directions passed
therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
"with regards Presidents and Members of the State and
District Commissions who have been appointed and serving
prior to Limaye-I (supra), they shall be allowed to complete
their tenure in entirety. In the event of their tenure ending
before the completion of the recruitment process under the new
Rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to
continue until the completion of the said recruitment process."
8. That, the relief order dated 05.05.2025 mentioned as
impugned by the petitioner was passed well before passing of
the Judgment dated 21.05.2025 at annexure-3 of the WP. As
such, issuing of the relief order was neither intentional nor
deliberated, and was not intended to violate an order passed
prospectively.
xx xx xx xx
10. That, in reply to the averments made at Para-4(v) of the
writ petition, it is humbly submitted that passing of the relief
order dated 05.05.2025 much before passing of the order dated
21.05.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Kumar
Rajeshwarrao Selukar (supra) was not intended to contravene
any orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court prospectively;
rather to manage administrative exigencies to ease the
relinquishment of his duty for smooth functioning of the District
Commission, Khurdha.
Further, it is pertinent to state that pursuant to order
dated 05.05.2025 as disputed, the petitioner in the capacity of
President, District Commission, Khurdha has relieved himself
from the said post vide the District Commission Khurdha's
O.O. No.462 dated 03.06.2025, well after passing of the
Judgment dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
For that, relieving himself in official capacity being well aware
of the pronouncement of the judgment as above and invoking
the directions passed therein, filing of the writ petition for
claiming reinstatement without going for a representation
before the State OP for consideration of his prayer, sounds
surprising as well as unreasonable and unsystematic showing
intractable nature of the petitioner.
Copy of the O.O. No.462 dated 03.06.2025 issued by the
District Commission, Khurdha is annexed herein as Annexure-
B/1.
xx xx xx xx
13. That, in reply to the averments made in Para-4(vii) &
(viii) of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that with
regards to GoI letter dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure-5 of the writ
petition) on intimation to all State Governments regarding the
directions passed in Ganesh Kumar Rajeswarrao Selukar
(supra) to continue the tenure of Presidents & Members of all
consumer till completion of recruitment under the new Rules to
be notified, it is to mention here that the same letter issued by
the Govt. of India was treated as "Stand Withdrawn" by
subsequent letter of GoI dated 10.09.2025.
Copy of the Govt. of India letter dated 10.09.2025 is
enclosed herewith at Annexure-D/1.
14. That, in reply to the averments made in Para-5, 6, 7, 8, 9
& 10 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the prayer
of the petitioner for reinstatement in the post of President,
District Commission, Khurda and to provide back wages
thereof from 23.05.2025 till the date of reinstatement, on the
grounds as mentioned in the writ petition merits no
consideration and are unreasonable."
8. While arguing the matter, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel had
submitted - ―the petitioner resigned / terminated / relieved‖. Factually,
those terminologies describing superannuation of the petitioner are
incorrect. The office order dated 05.05.2025 issued by the Government of
Odisha in the Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Welfare is
abundantly clear that the petitioner on attaining the age of 65 years on
23.05.2025 will get himself relieved.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner in good faith had to act upon the notification dated 05.05.2025
and his superannuation in any event, as notified by the said order, was to
come into effect from 23.05.2025, which, upon interdiction by the orders
and direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 21.05.2025, cannot have
effect of superannuating the petitioner.
10. It is submitted that the contention of the State-Opp.Party regarding
the petitioner ‗having relieved himself' or the ‗petitioner himself got
relieved' is incorrect in view of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
The order of the Apex Court we have reproduced in our order dated
25.09.2025, extract of para-102, particularly paragraphs 3 and 4.
11. At this stage, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that we may
‗pass order' but he does not answer the specific query from the Court as
recorded in the orders passed earlier also reiterated by us today that there is
violation of the judgment as well as directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding arrangements to be made due to operation of the judgment and
order dated 21.05.2025.
In our considered view, the Hon'ble Apex Court was conscious of the
fact that due to operation of the said judgment and order, some
arrangements are to be made, as the Court directed at para-102, sub-para at
page 53 of the SCC Online print :
" We make it clear that for all those appointments which have
been allowed to continue vide this Judgment, the tenure shall be
a period of 4 years. Such persons shall not be entitled to claim
the benefit of this Judgment qua a five-year tenure, subject to
the directions issued hereinabove. We also make it clear that
this Judgment shall apply prospectively, except to the extent
indicated in the directions hereinabove."
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Behera relies on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Spencer & Company Ltd. and Another
vs. Vishwadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 259,
particularly paragraphs 1, 5 and 10, which read thus -
―1. It has been said before, and needs to be said again, what we
are about to through this order, to strengthen the functional
chains which pull the judicial machine to its destination on the
track laid by the Constitution.
xx xx xx xx xx
5. The Articles above referred to are reproduced hereafter as a
reminding exercise:
―141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all
courts.- The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be
binding on all courts within the territory of India.
142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court
and orders as to discovery, etc.-- (1) The Supreme Court in the
exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or
matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so
made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in
such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by
Parliament and until provision in that behalf is so made, in such
manner as the President may by order prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf
by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole
of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any
order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person,
the discovery or production of any documents, or the
investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
***
144. Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the
Supreme Court.-- All authorities, civil and judicial, in the
territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.‖
xx xx xx xx xx
10. The afore-narrated words, we think, presently, are enough
to assert the singular constitutional role of this Court, and
correspondingly of the assisting role of all authorities, civil or
judicial, in the territory of India, towards it, who are mandated
by the Constitution to act in aid of this Court. That the High
Court is one such judicial authority covered under Article 144
of the Constitution is beyond question. The order dated 14-1-
1994 of this Court was indeed a judicial order and otherwise
enforceable throughout the territory of India under Article 142
of the Constitution. The High Court was bound to come in aid
of this Court when it required the High Court to have its order
worked out. The language of request oftenly employed by this
Court in such situations is to be read by the High Court as an
obligation, in carrying out the constitutional mandate,
maintaining the writ of this Court running large throughout the
country.‖
13. Apart from relying on the said paragraphs, the learned counsel Mr.
Behera refers to Article 144 of the Constitution of India which is
reproduced above as par of the order of the Apex Court, to submit that the
State Govt. is an authority to act in aid of the Supreme Court as mandated
in Article 144 of the Constitution of India.
14. Regarding the submissions made by the learned Additional Standing
Counsel that this Court should pass orders, in our considered view the said
submissions have to be dealt with in their proper perspective. We are faced
with a situation where after passing of a clear direction by the Supreme
Court, we are asked by the Opposite Party Authorities to interpret regarding
compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We have to
remind ourselves as a Constitutional Court that we are not to further
interpret or clarify the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the present case though suggested by the Opposite Parties. No authority,
as provided in Article 144 of the Constitution of India, can take a stand that
the orders passed by the Supreme Court are subject to further interpretation
by the High Courts to be acted upon by the authority concerned. Similarly,
it has to be held that, compliance of Supreme Court's orders cannot be
subject to further interpretation by the High Court. The orders have to be
complied by the authority, as directed by the Apex Court.
15. Though the learned Additional Standing Counsel has again and again
reiterated the submission asking us to pass orders regarding superannuation
of the petitioner, we refrain from doing so being conscious of the fact that
we are dealing with a situation where very clear and unambiguous
directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court taking care of all
the future contingencies, as is evident. To use the expression of the Apex
Court in Spencer & Company Ltd. (supra), the directions / writs issued in
Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar (supra) run large throughout the
country, to be only read by the authority as an obligation in carrying out
Constitutional mandate, and we add : to uphold rule of law.
16. We grant further adjournment to the Opposite Parties on the request
of the learned Additional Standing Counsel. The matter be listed on 08 th
December, 2025 and shall retain its position to be listed under the same
category.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
S.K. Parida
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 04-Dec-2025 20:10:22
