The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7653 of 2025 1. Dasharath Mahanta 2. Puspak Nayak ….. Petitioners Mr. Janmeajaya Dash, Advocate -versus- of Labour 1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary, Department of Ministry and Employment, New Delhi 2. Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi 3. Regional Director, ESIC Regional Office, Bhubaneswar 4. Chairperson, Commissioner for Allied & Health Care Professions, New Delhi. ….. Opp. Parties Mr. Rakesh Behera, C.G.C. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
ORDER 20.03.2025 Order No. 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Mr. Rakesh Behera, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India files the appearance memo in Court today. The same is taken on record. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Dasharath Mahanta and Puspak Nayak, challenging the order dated 27.02.2025 Page 1 of 6 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/00102 of 2025 in dismissing the O.A. as well as M.A. No. 84 of 2025 holding that the petitioners’ have no locus standi to file the OA before the Tribunal and the OA has been filed in the garb of Public Interest Litigation. Mr. Janmeajaya Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that earlier the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 33396 of 2022 to quash the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Employees State Insurance Corporation under Annexure-6 with a further direction to the opposite party to issue an open advertisement for filling the post of Juniors Medical Laboratory Technologist by direct recruitment as per Recruitment Regulations Rules, 2022. This Court vide judgment and order dated 07.02.2025 has been pleased to hold as follows:- “13. On a conjoint reading of the Article 323(A) and the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and the notification of the Organization of ESIC under category D in terms of the “Rules, 1993” as noted hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition before this Court is not maintainable. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 15. Interim order stands vacated. 16. The Petitioners are at liberty to pursue his Page 2 of 6 remedy before the appropriate Tribunal. 17. In the event such an application is filed, the learned Tribunal shall take into account that the Petitioners bonafide was pursuing the matter before this Court.” Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of such order passed by this Court in the writ petition, the petitioners approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A., but the learned tribunal has been pleased to hold that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the OA, which was not proper and justified. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the following observations have been made by the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the Original Application:- “8. It may be noted that the applicants have sought to quash the Office Memorandum Z-17012/4/2021-MED- VI-Part(3) dated 02.12.2022 wherein the respondents department directed for filling up of the posts of Lab. Assistant as per the Recruitment Regulation published vide Gazette dated 21.05.2011 in respect of the vacancies arising upto 07.01.2022, i.e. prior to revised regulations came into effect, in compliance of the order of the CAT, PB, New Delhi dated 04.08.2022 in OA 2865/2021. In such a situation, as per the law, the applicants in OA No. 2865/2021 should be made as Page 3 of 6 parties in this OA but they have not been made opposite parties. Thus, this OA suffers from non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary/proper parties. 9. The respondents' department seek to fill up the post by way of promotion. The applicants being the outsiders/not the employees of the respondents department, obviously, have no locus standi to question the notification for effecting promotion. Hence, the grievance of the applicants falls flat for the above reasons.” In the operative portion, the learned Tribunal has held as follows :- “21. We have gone through the counter filed by the respondents department before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and the final order in the writ petition and we find that in the counter the respondents department objected the very maintainability of the Writ Petition after coming into effect the AT Act, 1985 and the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa after taking provision of AT Act and the decision in L.Chandra Kumar (supra) disposed of the writ petition holding that the writ petition was not maintainable, however, in the said order it was observed that in the event such an application is filed the Tribunal shall take into account that the petitioners’ bonafide for pursuing the matter before the Court wherefrom the Tribunal can take the clue that the delay should not come on the way of the Page 4 of 6 OA but there is no such observation that this Tribunal shall entertain this OA irrespective of the facts and law discussed above. 22. In view of the facts, law and discussions made above, it is completely established that the applicants have no locus standi to file this OA before this Tribunal and this OA is filed in the garb of Public Interest Litigation. 23. Hence, this OA as well as MA 84/2025 stand dismissed. But, taking into consideration that the applicants are unemployed, we do not like to impose any costs.” There is no dispute that the petitioners are not the employees of the respondent - department and the prayer of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal was to challenge the promotion order passed in favour of some of the employees of the respondents. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is quite justified in holding that the petitioners are outsiders and therefore, they have no locus standi to question the notification for effecting promotion. The contention of the learned counsel that merely because this Court has passed the order in the Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal does not mean that the Tribunal committed any error in considering the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the original application. This has been rightly done by Page 5 of 6 the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, the same is dismissed. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they can seek the alternative remedy. (S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Sukanta/Puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 24-Mar-2025 14:36:46 Page 6 of 6