The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 08. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22554 of 2024 Union of India and others … Petitioners Mr.B.S. Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel Subodha Kumar Nayak …. Opp. Party -versus- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA ORDER 15.12.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 260/00161 of 2017, inter alia, allowing the Original Application filed by the opposite party Subodha Kumar Nayak. It appears that the opposite party being the applicant has filed the aforesaid Original Application seeking for the following reliefs: “(i) To quash the order of Respondent No. 2 dt. 30.08.2016 under Annexure-A/16 & direct the respondent no. 1 & 2 to antedate the date of regularization of service of the applicant / date of his absorption in Group-D service from the date, retrenched casual labourers of RRB, Bhubaneswar as are seen under Annexure-A/3 (who were similarly situated like him) have been regularized/absorbed in service in terms of Annexure-A/2 with all Page 1 of 7 consequential benefits including pensionary benefits on the basis of equality and maintaining uniformity in consideration or quash the Annexure-A/16 and direct the respondent no. 1&2 lo treat the date of incorporation of name of the applicant in casual live register i.e. 08.03.02 (as has been made under Annexure-AV6), as his date of appointment as Substitute Helper-ll (which has been made vide Annexure-A/7). (ii) To further direct the above Respondents to antedate the temporary status of the applicant from 05.08.06 to 08.07.02, holding him to have completed 120 days service as Substitute Helper-ll from 08.03.02, (which is the date of entry of his name in the casual live register) and accordingly further direct the above respondents to antedate the date of regularization of the applicant as Helper-ll (as has been made in Annexure-A/9) from 08.11.07 to 09.07.02 (i.e. the next date of his getting temporary status from 08.07.02) notionally and accordingly direct the respondents to release the differential salary, payable to him from 08.11.07 onwards till date and treat the service of the applicant from his antedated date of regularization i.e. 09.07.02 to till his actual joining in Group-D post as Helper-ll on 08.11.07 vide Annexure-A/9 as qualifying service only for the purpose of pension and other consequential service benefits except seniority in the interest of justice.” The main ground that has been taken by the opposite party for claiming such relief was that the order dated 30.08.2016 was a non-speaking order and it was silent on many Page 2 of 7 aspects, which shows that the authority has not considered the said aspects while passing the said order. The order dated 30.08.2016 was passed rejecting the claim solely on the ground of limitation, which is a technical ground, on the basis of which, the opposite party cannot be denied the relief. Further grounds have been taken by the opposite party that he had sought for antedating his date of regularization only to come under the fold of pension scheme and in the impugned order dated 30.08.2016, nothing has been stated by the authority about the similarly placed person like the opposite party, who were taken back into service and regularized in their respective posts with all consequential financial benefits and the factum of discrimination to the opposite party has not been denied by the petitioners. It is further stated in the grounds that the opposite party is neither claiming seniority nor financial benefits (except notional benefits) while praying for antedating his date of regularization of service from 08.11.2007 to 09.07.2002 for the purpose of coming under the pension scheme and the said aspect has not been considered by the petitioners while passing the order dated 30.08.2016. Grounds have also been taken that there is nothing in the said order as to why the order of the learned Tribunal dated 02.04.1998 passed in O.A. No. 153 of 1997 was not immediately complied with for which delay occurred in the regularization of the opposite party from the subsequent period. It is further stated that if the order of the learned Tribunal would have been immediately complied with, the opposite party could have come under the pension scheme. It is the further case of the opposite party that having issued the instructions to absorb the retrenched casual labourers of RRB/BBS under Khurda Division as per the letter of the Chief Personal Officer dated 06.01.2002, the opposite party could not have been discriminated in absorption by the authority when Page 3 of 7 similarly placed retrenched casual labourers like him were re- engaged and absorbed in service. Grounds have also been taken that the action of petitioner no.1 in absorbing the retrenched casual labourers by pick and choose method without considering the cases of all the retrenched casual labourers for their absorption, amounts to unfairness and discrimination. It is further stated that had the petitioner no.1 acted upon the order of the learned Tribunal forthwith in including his name in the live register of casual labourers, his absorption in Group-D post could have been effected earlier much prior to the cut-off date i.e. 01.01.2004 and had it been so, he could have come under the provision of pension scheme like other retrenched casual labourers, who in view of their earlier absorption in Group-D post prior to the cut-off date, have come under the fold of pension scheme and are getting more service benefits than him. The petitioners, as respondents, filed their counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the claim made by the opposite party is barred by limitation and that the opposite party has been informed by a reasoned and speaking order dated 30.08.2006 and that his belated request for grant of antedating the regularization with effect from 09.07.2002 instead of 08.11.2007, cannot be considered. The learned Tribunal in the impugned order, after taking into account the pleadings of both the parties, and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, has been pleaded to hold as follows: “5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the persons those who were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 (A/3) all were engaged as casual labourers in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993 whereas engagement of the applicant on such casual basis was in 1986. On perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Page 4 of 7
Legal Reasoning
High Court of Orissa in OJC No. - 17025/1998 dated 11.09.2000, it is established that the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition holding that in view of the letter dated 06.01.1992 (A/2) no further direction is necessary, therefore, when the cases of other casual laborers, who were engaged in 1991, 1992 and 1993 and retrenched, were considered and regularized, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the applicant since his engagement and retrenchment were much prior to 1991. Further, when the case of the applicant was taken to live casual register and subsequently, he was engaged as substitute, conferred with temporary status and regularization, the respondents ought to have taken note of the order dated 12.08.1993 (A/3) wherein the juniors of applicant were regularized. Thus, there was miscarriage of justice caused to the. applicant in the decision making process of the matter is tell tale on the face of the record. The respondents did not utter a single word in respect of the above aspects in their counter and have only raised technical objection of limitation etc. This Tribunal is not impressed on such technical grounds when the injustice is palpable. 6. The corollary of the discussions made above, it is held that the grievance of the applicant needs favourable consideration at the hands of the respondent-authorities. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 under Annexure-A/16 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization from the date when others were regularized vide Page 5 of 7 order dated12.08.1993 (A/3), however, without any backwages, and consequential order be issued to the above effect within a period of 120 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Decision
7. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the contentions raised by the learned Tribunal, submitted that in view of the belated approach of the opposite party in claiming the relief, he should not have been granted the relief. However, on this aspect, the learned Tribunal has dealt in the impugned order. He further submitted that admittedly the casual labourers who were engaged in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 and retrenched, their cases were considered and they were regularized, but the opposite party, who was engaged as casual labourer in the year 1986, even if he has been retrenched, his case has been considered and he has been regularized. However, his claim that he should have been regularized when others were regularized, who were his juniors, should not have been allowed. Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusing the impugned order, we find no illegality in the direction of the learned Tribunal to consider the case of the opposite party from the date when others were regularized as per order dated 12.08.1993 more particularly when the learned Tribunal has directed so without any direction for payment of back wages. Thus, the approach of the petitioners to this Court against the impugned order is not at all acceptable. It seems that when the impugned order was passed on 25.04.2024, only 120 days time was granted to take steps in Page 6 of 7 that regard and admittedly, the said period has expired. However, since we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, we direct that the petitioners shall comply with the order of the learned Tribunal passed in the aforesaid Original Application within a period of sixty days from today, failing which opposite party is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (S.S. Mishra) PKSahoo Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 17-Dec-2025 10:14:54 Page 7 of 7