The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22739 of 2025 Union of India and others …. Petitioners Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel -versus- Suryakant Jena …. Opp. Party Mr. Nirmal Ranjan Routray, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 03.09.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Legal Reasoning
referred to above. We find that this case is also covered by the cases relied on by the applicant. The respondents did not produce any evidence that the aforesaid orders have been reversed or any decision contrary to the decision taken by this Bench has been taken. According to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, as per Estt. Sl. No.63/2013 (RBE No.41/2013), para 1307 & 1308 of IREM-1 (revised Edition 1989) first print edition 2009 was amended to the extent that while determining the pay in the pay band for the purpose of fixation of pay of medically unfit running staff in alternative (stationary) posts, an amount required to such percent of the basic pay (Pay in PB+GP) the pay in the pay element in the running allowance as may be in force from time to time may be added to the existing pay in the pay band and the resultant figure (ignoring the faction of rupee if any) rounded off to the next multiple of 10, would be the pay in the Page 3 of 7 PB in the alternative posts with no change in grade pay of substantive post in suitable alternative posts. We do not find any reason as to how the above procedure is applicable to the instant case. Rather, we find that the order of this Bench in OA 131/2007 dated 13.11.2009 was challenged by the UOI before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.2128/2010 and the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa dismissed the said Writ Petition on 28.09.2011 directing as under: “On perusal of one of the judgments referred to by the Tribunal in O.A.No.434 of 2008 disposed of on 1 May, 2009 (Bibhuti Bhusan Padhiary Vrs. Union of India and another), we find that the Tribunal in a similar case is that of the present case had directed the present petitioners to post the applicant therein in a suitable alternative post except the post of Power Controller/Crew Controller and if suitable post is not available, create a supernumerary Page 4 of 7 post in accordance with Chapter XIII of IREM Volume-I and Section 47 of Act 1 of 1996. Therefore, there is no difficulty on the part of the petitioners in creating supernumerary post in accordance with the aforesaid Indian Railway Establishment Manual in order to accommodate the opposite party. We therefore decline to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismiss the writ petition." 5. It is seen that the respondents rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 03.04.2020 without taking into consideration the law laid down above by this Bench in the cases of Bibhuti Bhusan Padhiary and Chandra Sekhar Behera (supra) and the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa quoted above. Hence, we do not have any hesitation to hold that the said order of rejection being passed contrary to law is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, accordingly, the order of rejection dated 03.04.2020 is hereby Page 5 of 7 quashed and the respondents are directed for consideration/ reconsideration applicant’s appointment strictly of in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.2128/2010 extracted above. The entire action shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, this OA stands allowed. No costs.” The Tribunal passed the impugned order relying upon the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) No.2128 of 2010 and there is nothing before us produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners to suggest the challenge of the said decision before any higher forum. Since similarly situated persons have got the benefit on account of the health condition, the opposite party is also entitled to the same benefit. The Tribunal quashed the order dated 03.04.2020 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur by rejecting the representation dated 04.02.2020 of the opposite party and directed the authorities concerned to reconsider the appointment of the opposite party strictly in accordance with the direction of this Court issued in Page 6 of 7 W.P.(C) No.2128 of 2010. After going through the averments taken in the writ petition, the original application, the counter filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal and on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) RKM Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 11:25:09 Page 7 of 7
Arguments
Heard Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Nirmal Ranjan Routray, learned counsel for the opposite party. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and others challenging the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No.260/00152 of 2020 under Annexure-1. It appears that the opposite party Suryakant Page 1 of 7 Jena filed the original application before the Tribunal with the following reliefs:- “a) The applicant therefore, prays that the original application may be admitted, call for records, after hearing parties quash the impugned order dated 03.04.2020 under Annexure-l. b) Further direct the Respondents to give alternative employment to the applicant against a suitable vacant post meant for medically C-1 category post having similar scale of pay and service benefits other than the post of Crew Controller/Power Controller (CC/PC). c) Further direct the Respondents to provide all the service benefits to the applicant with all arrear dues till providing the suitable alternative employment with same cadre to the post of Loco Pilot.” It appears from the impugned order that after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the Tribunal came to the following conclusions, which reads as follows:- “4. After giving thoughtful consideration to the stand taken by the respective parties narrated above, we have gone through the Page 2 of 7 pleadings and the materials placed in support thereof. We have also examined the facts and issues involved in this OA that of the facts and issues involved in the cases