The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13548 of 2024 Union of India & others …. Petitioners Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, Central Government Counsel -versus- Samuel Ekka …. Opp. Parties Mr. Niranjan Biswal, Advocate (Caveator) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 14.07.2025 12. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party (caveator). Pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2024, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) has been deposited by the Union of India in the Orissa High Court Advocates’ Welfare Fund. Receipt to that effect has been filed, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he does not want to file any counter affidavit. Page 1 of 10 This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and others challenging the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.816 of 2019 whereby the Original Application filed by the opposite party Samuel Ekka has been allowed and the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in R.A. No.260/0009 of 2021 in dismissing the review application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The facts of the case in terse is that the applicant had earlier filed one Original Application bearing O.A. No.648 of 2014 challenging the inquiry report, order of punishment as well as the order
Legal Reasoning
passed by the appellate authority, who had confirmed the demotion of the opposite party. The learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure- A/5) quashed the inquiry report, order of disciplinary authority as well as order of the appellate authority. The applicant submitted that after receipt of the order, he filed a representation for implementation of the judgment. The respondent, while implementing the judgment/order, although restored the applicant to his original post i.e. Chief Office Superintendent, Level-7 with effect from 16.04.2014 from the date of Page 2 of 10 demotion, but did not allow to draw his pay against the said post from the dated of demotion i.e. 16.04.2016 to the date of Tribunal’s order i.e. 08.12.2017. The applicant filed C.P. No.65/2019. The learned Tribunal held that since no order was passed with regard to grant of consequential benefits and the contemnor’s have substantially complied with the judgment/order, accordingly, the Contempt was dropped. However, granted liberty to pursue the remedies if the opposite party aggrieved and cause of action survives. The opposite party has again filed a separate Original Application bearing O.A. No.816 of 2019 before the learned Tribunal claiming pay of Chief Office Superintendent from 15.04.2014 to 08.12.2017. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order, allowed the same. Hence, the petitioners-Union of India have filed the present writ application assailing the impugned order. The petitioners, on being noticed by the learned Tribunal, filed counter affidavit to the Original Application No.816 of 2019 and contested the same. In paragraph-3 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal dealt with the case of the petitioners, which reads thus: Page 3 of 10 “In in OA the order dated 08.12.2017 is No.648/2014 the Tribunal had held “OA allowed. Inquiry Report dated 25.03.2014 (Annexure A/10), Disciplinary order dated (Annexure A/11) and appellate 15.04.204 authority order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure A/14) are hereby quashed. No costs”, but no order of granting of consequential benefits was given the respondents have implemented the order and restored the applicant’s pay as Ch. OS w.e.f. 16.04.2014 and pay has been drawn from 08.12.2017. The respondents further submitted that this Tribunal while adjudicating the CP No.65/2019 had also held that “It is seen that as per order dated 08.12.2017, this Tribunal has quashed the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and no further consequential reliefs were granted in the said order. Therefore this Tribunal is not satisfied that any ground has been made out to issue notice on contempt. Accordingly CP is dropped.” Hence the applicant is not entitled to any consequential reliefs as claimed by him in the present OA.” the enquiry report, order of It appears that the Original Application filed by the opposite party was allowed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.260/648 of 2014 vide order dated 18.12.2017 quashing the inquiry report dated 25.03.2014 and the disciplinary order dated 15.04.2014 and the appellate authority’s order dated 11.07.2014, but no specific observation was made in regard to the prayer made by the opposite party with respect to grant of all service and consequential benefits while the opposite party was not functioning in the post because of reversion order. When the opposite party filed the contempt petition vide C.P. No.260/65 of 2019, the Page 4 of 10 learned Tribunal, vide order dated 01.10.2019, was pleased to hold that no ground has been made out to issue notice on the contempt and accordingly dropped the contempt petition but gave liberty to the opposite party to take necessary legal steps, if he is otherwise aggrieved. Accordingly, the second Original Application bearing O.A. No.260/816/2019 was filed in which specific prayer has been made by the opposite party to modify the order dated 12.09.2018 under Annexure-A/6 to the extent that the opposite party be allowed to draw his salary against the post of Chief Office Superintendent, Level-7 with effect from 16.04.2014 instead of 18.08.2017 the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Prayer was also made to direct the petitioners to restore the opposite party in the post of Chief Office Superintendent, Level-7 with effect from 16.04.2014 with all service and consequential benefits within the time limit. The prayer of the opposite party was allowed and the operative part of the order reads thus: “12…….. Of course if the applicant has not worked as Chief Office Superintendent w.e.f. 15.04.2014 to 08.12.2017, then he may not be entitled for any particular allowances like travelling allowance etc. to which a person is normally entitled if he works in that capacity on day to day basis for that period. But claiming pay of Chief Office Superintendent w.e.f. 15.04.2014 till 08.12.2017 does not at all come under scope and ambit of consequential benefit and the right and claim of the applicant in the present OA is clearly covered Page 5 of 10 by earlier order passed by this Tribunal vide annexure A/3 and therefore the respondents were duty bound and legally obliged to grant pay in favour of the applicant, which he was entitled to in his capacity as Chief Office Superintendent w.e.f. 15.04.2014.” 13. “Accordingly the the OA respondents are directed to grant the pay in question to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No cost.” is allowed, It appears that review petition against the aforementioned order was filed by the petitioners vide R.A. No.9 of 2021 and the same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 19.10.2023 and the learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold as follows: “8. It is not the case of the Review Applicants that there was any apparent error on the face of record leading review of the same. Rather it appears that the Applicants seek for rehearing of the matter on merit which is impermissible in law. Thus, going by the stand point of the Review Applicants vis-à-vis the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is at a loss to come to the conclusion that there was any error apparent on the face of record requiring review of the order. 9. In view of the above, this RA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” While passing the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 in O.A. No.816 of 2019, the learned Tribunal has taken into account the ratio laid down by Page 6 of 10 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Nandan Mahtor -Vrs.- State of Bihar and others reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 626, wherein considering the factual scenario of that case, it has been held that since the appellant in that case was kept out of service on account of suspension then he could not have been denied the benefit of back wages on the ground that he has not worked for the period when he was illegally kept out of service and therefore, direction was issued in the said case. It was held that the appellant was entitled to the service benefits when he was kept out of service.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel argued that the opposite party was not kept out of service but on account of initiation of the departmental proceeding, he was ultimately reverted to the post of Senior Clerk and the inquiry report was submitted against him, which was affirmed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority and after all these orders were quashed by the learned Tribunal, he has been taken into service. Thus, he is not entitled to get the consequential service benefits and therefore, the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal passed in O.A. No.816 of 2019 so also the review petition should be quashed. Page 7 of 10 On a careful analysis of the first judgment, which was passed by the learned Tribunal, we find that the inquiry report, disciplinary order and the appellate authority’s order were quashed assigning the reasons therein, which reads as under: “5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on some citations including the following: a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Nandan Mahtor vrs State of Bihar and others (2013) 11 SCC 626. 6. We have heard learned counsels for both the sides, gone through their pleadings, materials on record and citations relied by them. The order of reversion vide Annexure A/3 was passed on 15.04.2024. The previous OA was disposed of on 08.12.2017 by quashing the order of punishment of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that this Tribunal in earlier OA had not passed any order for consequential benefit and that the applicant has not challenged the said order by filing any Review Application before this Tribunal or by filing any writ application before Hon’ble high court. Hence it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant is not entitled for any such consequential benefits. It has to be examined as to whether any order for consequential benefit was required to be passed by the Tribunal and if in the absence of any specific order granted by the Tribunal in the previous OA for grant of consequential benefit, whether the applicant can be given the differential pay and other consequential benefits, in view of quashing of punishment order vide annexure A/3 by this Tribunal in previous OA. 7. The applicant was working as Chief Office Superintendent One departmental proceeding was initiated against him as per charge memo dated 11.11.2013. The punishment order dated Page 8 of 10 15.04.2014 vide Annexure A/3 passed by the disciplinary authority imposed on the applicant is as follows: “Reduction to Sr. Clerk in PB-1 with pay Rs.18,830/- & GP Rs.2800/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect.” 8. The said punishment order was confirmed by appellant authority vide order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure A/4). The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal earlier by filing one OA No.648/2014. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure A/5) with the following order: “O.A. is allowed. Inquiry Report dated 25.03.2014 (Annexure A/10), Disciplinary order dated 15.04.2014 (Annexure A/12) and the Appellant Authority order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure A/14) are hereby quashed. No costs.” The learned Tribunal is quite justified in holding that claiming pay of the Chief Office Superintendent with effect from 15.04.2014 i.e. the date of reversion till 08.12.2017 the date of judgment being the consequential service benefit, the right and claim of the opposite party is clearly covered by the earlier order passed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the petitioners are duty bound and legally obliged to grant the pay in favour of the opposite party, which he is entitled to in the capacity as Chief Office Superintendent with effect from 15.04.2014 because of the initiation of the departmental proceeding, since the opposite party was reverted to the post of Senior Page 9 of 10 Clerk and ultimately all those proceedings have been set aside, then the claim of the opposite party is quite justified. We find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal dated 21.06.2021 so also the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in the review application. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Subhasis Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:56:24 Page 10 of 10