The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.187 of 2025 Union of India & another …. Petitioners Mr. Biswajit Maharana, S.P.C. Rudra Narayan Mishra …. Opp. Party -versus-
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 29.10.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). The review petitioner has filed the present review petition filed by the petitioner to review the judgment dated 02.07.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.21713 of 2024. In the impugned order, we have noted down the factual aspect in paragraph-3 and the observation of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in paragraph-5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, we have held as follows: “13.The petitioners-Union of India by way of the present petition, are exploring the prayer in the Writ Petition for the second time. In the earlier Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No.21198 of 2014 Page 1 of 7 filed by the opposite party, this Court has unequivocally held that RBE No.132 of 2006 has no retrospective application, however, on procedural grounds remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by a reasoned order has again reiterated the same. Hence, the prayer of the Union of India made in the present Writ Petition has been judicially scrutinized by the learned Tribunal twice and this Court once in the earlier round. 14. The issue of applicability of RBE No.132 of 2006 retrospectively came in question before the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33309 of 2011 in the case of Union of India & Ors. -vrs.- Shubhasis Halder & Anr. The Allahabad High Court in the concluding paragraph has held as under:- "In the present case as observed above, the petitioner was appointed on 30.9.2000 and his pay was fixed including running allowance on 2.4.2002. The order for refixation of pay after deducting running allowance was passed on 26.2.2004. The Circular dated 15.9.2006 specifically provides that it will not have retrospective effect. It could not be pressed into service for deducting running allowances as element of pay for fixing the pay, and to direct recovery of the excess payment." 15. The attempt of the Union of India to give retrospective effect to RBE No.132 of 2006 has been negated by the Allahabad High Court. The same reasoning has been given by the learned Tribunal while allowing the Original Application of the opposite party which is impugned in the present petition. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax -Vrs.-Vatika Township Private Limited reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1, it is held as follows:- "28...... One established rule is that unless a Page 2 of 7 contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bed rock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips v. Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1, a retrospective is that contrary legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. the general principle legislation to 29. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of 'fairness', which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in the decision reported in L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates -Vrs.- Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd.: (1994) 1 AC 486. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation former legislation.... explain or to a 30. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a Page 3 of 7 retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without corresponding inflicting a detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India and Ors. -Vrs. Indian Tobacco Association: (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra and Ors : (2006) 6 SCC 289. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature." Therefore, this Court is not inclined to revisit the settled issue and upset the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.230 of 2011.” The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that RBE No.132 of 2006 is merely a clarificatory instruction reaffirming the above position and does not extend the applicability of the 30% pay element to appointments through GDCE and the case of the opposite party Rudra Narayan Mishra does not fall under the scope of this benefit, Page 4 of 7 which was not appreciated by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 and, therefore, the review petition should be entertained and the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.21713 of 2024 be reviewed or recalled. The limited scope of review jurisdiction is well settled. In the case of Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack and others vs. Malaya Ranjan Dash and another passed this court in RVWPET No.160 of 2025, we have observed as under: 18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to examine the contours of review jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent pronouncement in Malleeswari - Vrs.- K. Suguna and Another1, after drawing guidance from earlier decisions in Parsion Devi - Vrs.- Sumitri Devi2, Lily Thomas -Vrs.-Union of India3, Inderchand Jain -Vrs.- Motilal4, Shivdev Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab (supra), Hari Vishnu Kamath -Vrs.- Syed Ahmad Ishaque5, T.C. Basappa -Vrs.- T. Nagappa6, Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale7 and Chhajju Ram -Vrs.- Neki8, has restated the scope and ambit of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court crystallized the principles as follows: Hegde -Vrs.- “17. Having noticed the distinction between