The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21897 of 2025 Sailendra Sarkar …. Petitioner Mr. Abhilash Mishra, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. along with Mr. Kaibalya Panda, Central Govt. Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 01. This matter ORDER 17.09.2025 taken up is through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr. Kaibalya Panda, learned Central Govt. Counsel files their appearance memo, which is taken Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 18:08:58 on record. Heard. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sailendra Sarkar, challenging the order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. no.613 of 2011 in dismissing the Original Application so also the order dated 06.05.2025 passed in R.A. No.9 of 2015. Page 1 of 6 It appears that the Original Application was
Decision
disposed of on 17.08.2018 and the Review Application was filed on 11.04.2025 by the petitione. The ground that has been taken in the Review Application is as follows: “4. That, it is respectfully submitted here that as per law of limitation, the above mentioned review Application is to be filed within 30 days from the date of order. It is submitted here that after passing of order dtd.17.08.2018, the same was not communicated to the applicant by the conducting counsel and after being enquired about his case, the applicant/petitioner could only knew about the order dtd.17.08.2018, then applied for the certified copies of the Original Application with all annexure including the order dated 17.08.2018 and the applicant obtained the copies on 11.11.2024, and found that certain aspects and facts had not been taken into consideration and thereafter consulted the counsel to prefer review application and accordingly the present review application is filed and in that process there is delay of 2469 days in preferring in review application.” Page 2 of 6 Learned Tribunal after considering Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which provides that “no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed” and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Rajendra -Vrs.- Gonugunta Madhusudan Rao and others reported in (2025) 6 Supreme Court Cases 618, which was passed vide order dated 04.04.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos.11070-11071 of 2024, has been pleased to hold as follows: “4. Even, for the sake of argument it is accepted that the time limit of 30 days starts from the date when he obtained certified copy, i.e. on 11.11.2024, still it is established that this RA has been filed beyond the period of 30 days, i.e. 11.04.2025. Accordingly, to the applicant, the delay from 11.11.2024 to 11.04.2025 was for the reason that he was consulting the advocate for filing the RA. This explanation does not sound to appeal.” The impugned order which was passed on 17.08.2018 in the Original Application also indicates that the prayer made by the petitioner to regularize his services w.e.f. 08.08.1993 in the scale pay of Rs.950/- to Rs.1,500/- also considered and the learned Tribunal gave the following findings: Page 3 of 6 “After having examined all aspects of the issue including the claim laid by the applicant, it is felt that there is no point in further interfering in the matter and the I.A. is liable to dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A. is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. No costs.” The order itself shows that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the order was pronounced on the same day. Therefore, the grounds that has been taken in the Review Application, that the order was not communicated to the petitioner by the conducting counsel, for which the petitioner was not aware about the same and that after knowing about the passing of the order only applied for the certified copy, in our humble view, has rightly been turned down by the learned Tribunal. In the case of Shivamma (dead) by L.Rs. - Vrs.- Karnataka Housing Board and others reported in MANU/SC/1262/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the Respondents, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for Page 4 of 6 instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, it cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the Court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 259. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The Rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ’Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the Respondent for Page 5 of 6 indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the Appellants.” In view of the impugned orders and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Rajesh Page 6 of 6