The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23164 of 2025 Union of India & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. B.B. Mishra, Sr. Panel Counsel -versus- Subrat Ranjan Mallick and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Sashi Bhusan Jena (Caveator) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 15.09.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00339/2020 It appears that the opposite parties filed the Original Application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack seeking for the following reliefs:- “8. relief sought for: In view of the facts and laws mentioned in Page 1 of 7 para 4 & 5 of the Original Application, the applicants pay for the following relief(s) (i) To admit the Original Application; (ii) To quash the order of rejection dated 19.06.2020 under Annexure-A/11 (iii) To direct the Respondents to implement the recommendations of the ad-hoc Anomaly Committee in accordance with the judgments passed in annexure-4 & 5 respectively. (iv) To direct the respondents to fix up the pay scales of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- from 01.01.1996 (v) To direct the respondents to release the arrear and other consequential service benefits with 18% interest in favour of the applicants forthwith. (v) And pass any other order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal including an order of cost in the interest of justice and fair play. (vi) Allow this O.A. with cost”; The petitioners entered their appearance and filed the counter affidavit. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, after Page 2 of 7 hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the submissions, has been pleased to hold in paragraphs nos. 5, 6 and 7 as follows:- “5. It has been laid down as a norm that when a particular set of employees are given relief by the Court all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not extending such benefit would attract vice of discrimination and, thereby the action of the authority would be arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has also come to be observed that in case of Judgment in personam, though it has no application but on such pronouncement it becomes an obligation on the part of the authorities to extend the benefit to all such similarly situated persons except the person so approaches shall have to satisfy that their particular request does not suffer from either latches and delays or acquiescence. In deciding the case in State of Karnataka -Vrs.- C. Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747, Hon ble Apex Court has come to observe that service Page 3 of 7 jurisprudence evolved from time to time postulates that similarly situated employees should be treated similarly. Merely because one person approached the Court that would not mean person similarly situated can be treated differently. It is for the above consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court finds the State of Odisha, model employer, has no escape from applying the principle decided in the case of Ritanjali Girl @ Paul -Vrs.- State of Odisha (School & Mass Education Department), reported in 2016 (I) ILR-CUT 1162 to all such similarly situated cases. Such a view has been expressed by this Court in Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra -Vrs.- State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020, etc. vide Judgment dated 28.09.2021. 6. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav -Vrs.- Union of India, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 648, held that the relief granted by court is to be given to other similarly situated employees without forcing them to go to Page 4 of 7 court for similar benefits. The same view was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lai Berry -Vrs.- CEE reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714. An employee cannot be treated differently vis-a-vis other similarly situated employees as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in case of Union of India -Vrs.- Satya Brata Chowdhury reported in 2009 (2) SCT 365. It has also been held in Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balraj Singh –Vrs.- State of Haryana reported in 2009 (1) SCT 589 that once a controversy has been settled by the Court, final judgment is required to be implemented all employees similarly situated. 7. It is not in dispute that the applicants are similarly situated employees like the applicants before the CAT, Bangalore Bench, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, which order was upheld by the 15 O.A.N0. 260/00339 of 2020 Hon ble
Legal Reasoning
Apex Court. Therefore, we are of the view that once a view has been taken on a Page 5 of 7 particular issue of a particular set of employee working in Bangalore, the employees working in Odisha in the same department are entitled to the benefits what has been granted to them. Hence, the impugned order of rejection dated 19.06.2020 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to grant the similar benefit as has been granted to the applicants before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. Nos. 39163-39165/2013 (S-CAT) within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that similarly situated persons like the opposite parties have already got the relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Banglore Bench, in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no dispute that the petitioners are similarly situated persons and therefore, the learned Tribunal, in considering the proposition laid down in the aforesaid cases, is quite justified to hold that the opposite parties are entitled to get the benefits and accordingly quashed the order of rejection dated 19.06.2020 and Page 6 of 7 directed the petitioners to grant the similar benefits, as has been granted to the applicants before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka vide W.P. Nos.39163- 39165/2013 (S-CAT). After hearing the learned counsel for the Union of India so also Mr. Jena, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, we find that the reasoning are quite justified and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order to be interfered with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S. S. Mishra) Judge Pravakar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Sep-2025 18:31:29 Page 7 of 7