CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 05 OHC CK 0261

Dusmanta Kumar Bal vs Union Of India And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 18 May 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J · M.S. Raman, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 14511 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 346 words
1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order  dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 466 of 2018.

4.

Mr. D.P. Dhalsamanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset contended that the matter was heard and reserved by the Tribunal on 02.09.2022 and the order was passed on 30.09.2022, i.e. after three weeks, which is in violation of Rule-105 of Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, which requires that when the orders are reserved, the date for pronouncement not later than 3 weeks shall be fixed. The date so fixed shall not be changed except after due notice to all parties/counsel. He further contended that similar matter had come up before this Court for consideration in Nityananda Barik v. Union of India and others, 2022 (Supp.) OLR -289, wherein this Court has already held that if the order is passed dehors of Rule 105 of 1993 Rule, such order cannot sustain in the eye of law.

5.

Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, does not dispute such position on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the matter was heard and reserved by the Tribunal on 02.09.2022 and the order was pronounced on 30.09.2022, which is in violation of Rule-105 of Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993. Therefore, the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 466 of 2018 under Annexure-7 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for re-adjudication. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

7.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

………………………….