Writ Appeal No. 53 of 2007 · Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 3266 OF 2016 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------- AFR Suresh Mendli ..… Petitioner -Versus- Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench and others ….. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : M/s. S.S. Mishra, S. Tripathy, S.S. Sahoo & P.K. Samal, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : M/s. S.B. Jena, S. Behera, C. Sahoo and S.P. Jena, Advocates [O.P.No.4] Mr. P.R. Barik, Advocate [O.Ps.No.2 & 3] P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of hearing and Judgment : 29.09.2023 DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, who was serving as a Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM) since 1997-98 under the erstwhile “Department of Post and Telegraph, Project Page 1 of 28 Wing” and subsequently renamed as “Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)” in the year 2000, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/00845/14 under Annexure-3 so also the letter no.ETR/BGM-BN/L- 1/2012-13 dated 31.01.2013 under Annexure-1, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to reinstate him in his previous post/job with continuity of service and consequential benefits and confer temporary status on him w.e.f. January, 2010, from which date his counterparts were conferred with such status. The petitioner further seeks direction to the opposite parties to pay his unpaid salary for the period from January, 2010 till June, 2010. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that petitioner was serving as a Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM) since 1997-98 under the erstwhile “Department of Post and Telegraph, Project Wing”, which was subsequently Page 2 of 28 renamed as “Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)” in the year 2000. He was doing the job of cable jointing and in the year 2001 he was transferred to ETR Microwave (Maintenance). Since the petitioner knew driving, he was deployed by his authority to do the job of driving of BSNL’s vehicle since 2002 continuously. He was driving the Jeep bearing registration no.OR-15-C-5405 from 2002 till May, 2009 and since June, 2009 the petitioner was driving the vehicle of the Department Jeep bearing registration no.OR-03-F-0309 in the office of the SDE, OFC, Bhawanipatna. 2.1 The activities of Telecom started from the project which covered Optical Fibre Cable Laying, Tower Orientation, Power Plant Installation, etc. and after the project work was over it was handed over to the Maintenance Wing. During the project work, the materials, equipments, charge machine, generator, etc. were handed over to the Maintenance Wing and the Maintenance Wing takes such work officially. The Page 3 of 28 Maintenance Wing in Odisha was headed by opposite party no.4. While the petitioner working as such, some of the similarly placed DRMs, who were working in projects, got transferred to the Maintenance Wing and since some similarly placed employees were discriminated in respect of their wages, various allowances, different service conditions, including temporary status and regularization, those workmen in order to ventilate their grievances before the Management formed a Trade Union, namely, “Odisha Telecom Microwave Mazdoor Sangha”, which was duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and was granted Registration No.126/1997. After formation of the Union, it raised an industrial dispute with regard to payment of Central Government minimum wages, conferment of temporary status and regularization of their services as per the scheme formulated in 1989, pursuant to the direction of the apex Court in W.P.(C) No.376 of 1986 and W.P.(C) No. 302 of 1986, which was extended from time to time till 29.09.2000. Page 4 of 28 2.2 On demanding hiked/enhanced minimum wages and regularization of their services, a contractor, namely, M/s Oriental Security Service was interposed and the opposite party no.4-Management made paper arrangements to show that the present petitioner and similarly placed co-workmen are contract labourers. The dispute raised before the industrial forum claiming regularization being failed, reference was made by the appropriate Government in the Ministry of Labour to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication as to conferment of temporary status and regularization of services of 168 workmen, who are/were members of the said Union. The said industrial dispute was transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Bhubaneswar and renumbered as TRID Case No.268/2001. After following due procedure, the CGIT passed award on 19.05.2003 by observing that the contract between the contractor and the principal employer, i.e., opposite party no.4 is sham, camouflage and paper arrangement, and the present petitioner as well Page 5 of 28 as the concerned workmen are entitled to be conferred with temporary status. The Tribunal further directed that if vacancies arose in future, the case of the disputants should be considered for absorption against the said vacancies. 2.3 Pursuant to such award, instead of implementing the same, opposite party no.4 chose to challenge the said award before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9101 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.06.2007 by partially upholding the impugned award dated 19.05.2003 passed in TRID Case No. 268 of 2001 with regard to conferment of temporary status. Challenging the judgment dated 22.06.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9101 of 2003, opposite party no.4 preferred Writ Appeal No. 53 of 2007 and finally the said writ appeal was dismissed on
Legal Reasoning
07.11.2008 confirming the judgment passed by this Court. Since the salary of the concerned workmen in TRID Case No.268 of 2001 was not paid during pendency of the Page 6 of 28 said writ petition, on being directed by this Court, the petitioner and 160 others were paid their salary every month. Thereafter, against the order dated 07.11.2008 passed in W.A. No. 53 of 2007, the Management preferred SLP before the apex Court being SLP No. 9790 of 2009 and the apex Court, vide order dated 08.05.2009, though granted leave but no interim order was passed, rather, directed the management to implement/work out the judgment of this Court. In compliance of the direction issued by the apex Court, vide order dated 02.12.2009, opposite party no.4 passed order to confer temporary status in respect of 150 workmen only and no temporary status was conferred on the present petitioner and few others. Thereafter, vide circular dated 29.09.2000 of the Asst. Director General (STN), it was decided to regularize all the casual labourers working in the department as on the said date, including who have been granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.10.2000 including part time casual labourers who were converted to full time casual labourer on 25.08.2000 and part time Ayas and Supervisors Page 7 of 28 converted to full time casual labourers vide order dated 29.09.2000. 2.4 After conferring temporary status on 150 workmen, vide order dated 02.12.2009, the present petitioner and similarly placed few other workmen, who were concerned workmen in the said ID Case, were not paid their salary for the months from January, 2010 to June, 2010. But subsequently, the petitioner was paid his salary for the months of August and September, 2010 on 09.10.2010. Thereafter, similarly placed daily rated Mazdoors, namely, Punia Sahoo, Bijaya Kumar Pradhan, Jagannath Behera, Rushabha Juadi, Manguli Charan Bastia and Manoj Kumar Tandi approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 367/2010 with a prayer to direct the Management, BSNL to pay their unpaid salary and to confer on them temporary status at par with similarly placed employees/Daily Rated Mazdoors. The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 10.11.2010, granted such relief in their favour. But the same was Page 8 of 28 challenged by the Management before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14715 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court by confirming the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 10.11.2010 in O.A. No. 367 of 2010. 2.5 Since the petitioner was discriminated in comparison to his counterparts as to conferment of temporary status, he represented to opposite party no.4 on 05.07.2011 through registered post with A.D. with copies thereof to opposite parties no.2 and 3, but, no action was taken. On the other hand, on receipt of the representation filed by the petitioner, opposite party no.4 was contemplating to disengage him. Therefore, finding no other way out, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 758 of 2012 on 19.07.2012 before the Tribunal praying therein to direct the opposite parties to confer temporary status on him from the respective date on which the TSM status was conferred on the juniors and similarly placed DRMs in terms of the TSM Scheme, DoT order, award of the CGIT in TRID Case No.268 of 2001 and the confirming Page 9 of 28 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9190 of 2003. During pendency of the Original Application, M/s Abhiram Care Taking and Expert Services to be considered the employer of the petitioner, issued a letter dated 27.07.2012 as if he is appointed as a driver from 27.07.2012 to 26.07.2023 on a consolidated remuneration, as per the requirement of SDE (M/W), Maintenance, BSNL, Bolangir, which was followed by an unsigned letter no. ACTES/712 (10)/App. dated 31.07.2012 requesting the petitioner to furnish various information and documents, as detailed in the said unsigned letter. But the petitioner did not respond to the said letters nor submitted the documents and information as requested by the said so called contractors, as because he was engaged by the opposite parties to drive the department vehicle so also to do other such jobs like cable jointing as and when so required in addition to his job of driving the department vehicle. Page 10 of 28 2.6 The Telecom District Manager, BSNL, Bolangir, pursuant to letter dated 03.10.2002 of the AGM (HR & Adm.), Office of the CGM, BSNL, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar, deputed one Pradeep Kumar Kadam, Motor Driver Grade-1 of the said office temporarily to the office of SDE, OFC (Mtce.) Eastern Telecom Region, Bolangir, requesting him to report to the SDE (OFC) ETR, Bolangir immediately. Apprehending his disengagement and finding no other way out, the petitioner filed M.A. No. 1023 of 2012 in OA No. 7528 of 2012 on 11.11.2012 before the Tribunal praying therein to direct the opposite party no.4 to maintain status quo and not to disengage him from the post of driver, in which he was working then in the office of the SDE, OFC (Mtc.) ETR, Bolangir. But despite filing of memos before the Registry of the Tribunal, the said matter could not be listed and therefore a memo was filed before the Bench on 19.11.2012 and on being mentioned, the matter was listed on 22.11.2012 before
Legal Reasoning
the Bench and on the same date, learned counsel for the opposite parties entered appearance on instruction in the Page 11 of 28 said Original Application for the opposite parties and at the stage of admission, the said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2012 with a direction to the opposite party no.4 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by way of a reasoned/speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner within a period of seven days and till such decision is taken/communicated, status quo as on the said date, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, shall be maintained. Thereafter, the petitioner communicated the said order to opposite party no.4 on 27.11.2012 with a request to implement the said status quo order. But, in spite of allowing the petitioner to discharge his responsibilities as a driver, the Management deputed one Pradeep Kumar Kadam in the office of the SDE, OFC (Mtc.), Bolangir. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.P. No. 24 of 2013 on 20.02.2013 before the Tribunal for willful disobedience of the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Page 12 of 28 Tribunal. Ultimately, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected on 05.07.2011. Therefore, again the petitioner filed O.A. No. 260/845/2014 on 20.09.2014 before the Tribunal challenging the non-speaking order passed by opposite party no.4. 2.7. Thereafter, petitioner received a communication dated 31.01.2013 issued by opposite party no.4 on 04.02.2013, by which his representation dated 05.07.2011 was rejected by a non-speaking order on the ground that since he is not a concerned workman in TRID Case No.268 of 2001, interlocutory order of the apex Court dated 08.05.2000 in SLP No. 9790 of 2009 is not applicable to him as he does not fulfill the requirement to be conferred with temporary status. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order dated 31.01.2013 filed O.A. No. 260/845/2014 on 20.09.2014 before the Tribunal contending that the same was a non-speaking order, which required interference of the Tribunal. The said Original Application was listed on 26.11.2014 and on that Page 13 of 28 date direction was given to serve copy of the application on learned counsel appearing for the BSNL and to list the matter on 11.12.2014. On that date (11.12.2014), the matter was listed before the Single Bench and it was found that the subject-matter was one of ID case No.268 of 2001 which was pending before the apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9790 of 2009 and, as such, the said matter was the subject-matter of adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On being so pointed out, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in spite of pendency of the case before the apex Court, fresh cause of action arose on 25.12.2012, as the petitioner was disengaged despite the interim protection given by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.2012 passed in O.A. No. 758 of 2012 to maintain status quo till disposal of the representation dated 05.07.2011. But the Tribunal took a different view contrary to its own judgment passed in O.A. No. 367 of 2010, which was confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14715 of 2011. Thereafter, as an abundant caution, the Page 14 of 28 petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application under Rule 33 (III) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 seeking leave to file additional pleadings on 21.12.2014, which was registered as M.A. No.1084 of 2014. 2.8. On 15.01.2015, when the matter was heard by the Division Bench of the Tribunal with regard to its admission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Tribunal about the previous judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 9101 of 2003, so also the judgment dated 15.07.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 14715 of 2011, by which this Court confirmed the judgment dated 10.11.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 367 of 2010, where the management of BSNL had taken an identical stand in its counter filed before the Tribunal that the said petitioners numbering six were never concerned workmen in TRID Case No. 268 of 2011 and, as such, the award of which was confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9101 of 2003. The Tribunal allowed Page 15 of 28 the prayer of the petitioner for additional pleadings, vide order dated 15.01.2015, and accordingly a consolidated Original Application was filed on 19.01.2015 enclosing the said judgments of this Court. Despite of bringing into the record the said additional pleadings with judgments of this Court, the Tribunal, vide order dated 02.02.2015, directed the learned counsel appearing for the BSNL to apprise the status of SLP filed by BSNL before the apex Court and also ordered on its own that the learned counsel for BSNL may file his reply/objection regarding maintainability of the Original Application, with a further direction to list the matter on 22.02.2015. When the matter was listed on 22.02.2015, time was sought by the counsel appearing for the BSNL and the matter was adjourned to 09.03.2015, on which date the matter was heard on admission exhaustively by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 25.03.2015, when the counsel appearing for the petitioner could not appear due his personal difficulties and sought adjournment. But the Tribunal declined the prayer and closed the matter. Page 16 of 28 Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. As such, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the prayer of the petitioner revolves around the orders passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in TRID Case No.268 of 2001 and the subsequent interim order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the apex Court in SLP No.9790 of 2009. The Tribunal further held that since the petitioner wants to take the benefit of the orders of this Court, the prayer made in the Original Application is not amenable before the Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. S.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without appreciating the prayer made in the Original Application, passed the order on 25.03.2015, which requires interference of this court. It is further contended that the prayer of the petitioner was for quashing of the rejection order dated 31.01.2013 as at Annexure-1 so also to Page 17 of 28 reinstate the petitioner and to confer temporary status on him at par with other co-employees with all consequential benefits in terms of the observation made by this Court. It is contended that though the Tribunal has recorded the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.12.2014 that fresh cause of action arose on 25.12.2012, when the petitioner was disengaged, in addition to his prayer for quashing the communication made on 31.01.2013 by opposite party no.4, but the Tribunal has failed to take note of the admitted fact on record and has given a perverse observation, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that the Tribunal having applied its mind though allowed the petitioner to add documents to the Original Application, vide order dated 15.01.2015, and the petitioner incorporated the judgments dated 15.07.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 14715 of 2011 and judgment dated 22.06.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 9101 of 2003 as Annexure-A/15 series to the O.A. No.260/00845 of 2014, Page 18 of 28 but, while dismissing the Original Application, no reference was made to such judgments and in an erroneous manner the Original Application was dismissed contending that a similar matter, arising out of an industrial dispute, is pending before the apex Court. It is further contended that though the petitioner stands on similar footing with that of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14715 of 2011, but the Tribunal, without giving opportunity of hearing passed the order impugned, in dismissing the Original Application, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that during pendency of the Civil Appeal No.3700 of 2009, when O.A. No.367 of 2007 filed with identical facts and prayers was allowed by the very same Tribunal by directing the opposite party-corporation to extend the same benefits that had been extended to 158 workmen in compliance of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed in O.A. No.367 of 2010, which was confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14715 of 2011, non-consideration of the case of the petitioner amounts to non-application of mind and, Page 19 of 28 as such, the order having been passed without complying the principles of natural justice, that is to say, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that though the judgments of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.9103 of 2003 so also in W.P.(C) No.14715 of 2011 had been annexed to the Original Application as Annexure- A/15 series, but the same were not taken note of by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned. Thereby, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. 3.1 To substantiate his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on Management of Director, Microwave (Maintenance) v. Workmen & Ors., CLT (2007) SUPP. 70, The Management of Director, Microwave, ETR v. Workmen Rep. by President, OTMM, Sangha, W.A. No.53 of 2007 disposed of on 07.11.2008; Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BSNL & Ors. V. Punia Sahoo and others, Page 20 of 28 W.P.(C) No.14715 of 2011 disposed of on 15.07.2011, Management of Director, Microwave ETR v. Workmen Rep. by President, OTMM, Sangha and another, SLP No.9790, where the SLP was entertained, but no stay was granted; and Civil Appeal No.3600 of 2009 along with Civil Appeal No.747 of 2013 disposed of on 06.02.2020, by which the apex Court holding that there is no reason
Decision
to unsettle the settled position disposed of the appeals in terms of the fact that High Court interfered with the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal, as affirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by granting those workmen only temporary status and not permanent absorption, more so, in view of the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the apex Court desiring that the interim judgment of the Single Judge shall be worked out. 4. Mr. P.R. Barik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-BSNL justifies the order impugned passed by the Tribunal and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. This submission has also Page 21 of 28 been seconded by Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4. 5. This Court heard Mr. Subhashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. P.R. Barik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party-BSNL and Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4. No counter affidavit is forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties. Since it is an old case of the year 2016, this Court is not inclined to grant adjournment permitting the opposite parties to file counter affidavit, as in the meantime more than 9 years have passed and opportunity of hearing is being given to the opposite parties. Since it is a certiorari proceeding, on the basis of the materials available on record this Court proceeded to decide the matter finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The undisputed facts, as delineated above, reveal that the Tribunal had fixed the matter to 25.03.2015 and on that date, due to personal difficulties Page 22 of 28 of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, though a mention was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking adjournment, after due intimation to the counsel appearing for the BSNL, the Tribunal declined the said prayer and closed the matter intimating the associate advocate that order will be pronounced in course of the day. This clearly indicates that the Tribunal has not complied the principles of natural justice by giving opportunity of hearing to the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Thereby, the Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of record. 7. Furthermore, the sole contention, which was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal, is that for the selfsame cause of action the orders passed by the Tribunal having been challenged before this Court and vide judgment dated 15.07.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.14715 of 2011 and vide order dated 22.06.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No.9101 of 2003 the same having been confirmed and, as such, the said judgment Page 23 of 28 and order of this Court were annexed to the Original Application as Annexure-A/15 series, but the same were not taken into consideration while passing the order impugned. As a matter of course, the Tribunal should have gone into the pleadings available on record and should have applied its mind to the judgment and order passed by this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions to decide the Original Application on merit. If it was so urgent for the Tribunal to decide the Original Application without accommodating the counsel appearing for the petitioner, who had some personal difficulties and obtained consent from the counsel appearing for the opposite party-BSNL, the Tribunal should have carefully considered the materials available record including the judgment and order of this Court, as relied upon by the petitioner. But the very fact, that the Tribunal abruptly declined to adjourn the matter and closed the hearing, indicates that the Tribunal has not applied its mind in proper perspective. Page 24 of 28 8. As it appears, the Tribunal has relied upon certain facts, which are extracted hereunder:- to the the decision of confirmed by “…….. It has been submitted that similarly placed workmen, viz. Punia Sahoo and five others filed O.A. No.367/10 before the CAT, Cuttack Bench, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure-A/7) directing respondents should that examine the case of each of the applicants the with reference Industrial Tribunal the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and grant them appropriate relief as has been granted to others. Respondents challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon’ble High the same was Court of Orissa but the applicant dismissed. Subsequently, approached in O.A. No.758/12 praying therein to direct the respondents to confer temporary status on him w.e.f. the date his juniors and similarly placed DRMs were conferred with the temporary status with a further prayer to allow him to work in the post and place where he was working at that point of time will conferment of such temporary status and to pay him his unpaid salary for period from January, 2010 till June, 2010………..” Tribunal this 9. In view of the observation made above, the Tribunal could have decided the matter by granting temporary status to the petitioner at par with similarly situated persons. But the Tribunal has erroneously come Page 25 of 28 to a conclusion that the prayer of the petitioner revolves around the orders passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in TRID Case No.268 of 2001 and the subsequent interim order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the apex Court in SLP No.9790 of 2009. The Tribunal further held that since the petitioner wants the benefit of the order of this Court, the prayer made in the Original Application is not amenable before the Tribunal. Consequentially, the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the Original Application, which amounts to non-application of mind, particularly when similar question has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal and temporary status has been granted. As such, the Tribunal should have given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also should have examined the judgment and order of this Court in accordance with law. Thereby, there is gross violation of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. As such, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are without any application of mind. Thereby, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Page 26 of 28 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should have examined whether the ratio decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9101 of 2003, which has been confirmed in W.A. No.53 of 2007 disposed of on 07.01.2208 (The Management of Director, Microwave ETR v. Workmen Rep. by President, OTMM, Sangha) and the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by this Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BSNL & Others v. Punia Sahoo (W.P.(C) No.14715 of 2011) granting temporary status to the employees, will apply to the present fact or not. The same having not been done in the present case by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Tribunal has committed gross error in passing the order impugned, for which interference of this Court is warranted. 11. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. Page 27 of 28 260/00845/14 under Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after its re-adjudication by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 12. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. But, however, under the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. …………….…………..…. DR. B.R. SARANGI, JUDGE M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree. …………….…………..…. M.S. RAMAN, JUDGE Signature Not Verified Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 29th September, 2023, Ashok Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 10-Oct-2023 17:40:48 Page 28 of 28