Challenging Central Administrative Tribunal order rejecting Advance Compensation (ACP) claim. Court held delay and laches grounds invalid due to Apex Court precedent. Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order quashed; direction to grant ACP.
Order dated 17.03.2021 quashed; opposite parties directed to grant ACP within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.34591 of 2021
Sailendra Kumar Sahoo
Union of India & Others
….. Petitioner Mr.N.R.Routray, Advocate Vs.
….. Opposite Parties Mr.Alok Mohanty, CGC (O.Ps 1-3)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
ORDER
01.12.2022
Order No.
04
2
Against the said order, the Union of India had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) no.13677 of 2018 and this Court after due adjudication, vide order dated 20.07.2022, dismissed the said writ petition, relying upon the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP(C) no.11040 of 2013. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the Tribunal on the ground of delay and laches cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that there is continuity of cause of action for the petitioner to claim the benefit of ACP.
“4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order relying upon the decision in O.A. No.192 of 20190, which has been confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.12425 of 2012 and also by the apex Court in SLP(C) No.11040 of 2013. The
3
operating portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:
5. The above point has already been settled by the decision of this Tribunal dated 22.03.2012 in O.A. No.192 of 2010 as the same has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 06.02.2013 in W.P.C. No.12425 of 2012 and thereafter, the matter on being appealed of in SLP(C) No.11040 of 2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the same vide order dated 02.08.2013. Following the above decision, this Tribunal, later on also granted similar relief to the applicant in O.A. No.41 of 2011. Therefore, in our considered views, the point in issue being set at rest, we have to hesitation to hold that the period spent under training till the date of regularization of his service is reckonable for the purpose of grant of 1st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated 09.01.2014 (A/8) and direct the respondent-Railways to reconsider the claim of the applicant for grant of 1st ACP on completion of 12 years service from 08.04.1988, by conducting a review Screening Committee meeting and subject to fulfillment of other conditions, he be so granted with consequential financial benefits.”
(B.P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE
Alok
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim of petitioner for ACP grant can be rejected on grounds of delay and laches when settled by Supreme Court precedent.
Whether direction to grant 1st financial upgradation w.e.f. March 2000 under ACP Scheme with consequential benefits is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Girish Chandra Kabat vs. Union of India and othersFollowed¶18
O.A. No.260/00321 of 2014 (Girish Chandra Kabat vs. Union of India and others)
Union of India vs. Sailendra Kumar SahooFollowed¶20
W.P.(C) No.13677 of 2018
Supreme Court decision regarding ACP advanceFollowed¶20
SLP(C) No.11040 of 2013
Decision in O.A. No.192 of 20190Followed¶24
O.A. No.192 of 20190
Decision in W.P.C. No.12425 of 2012Followed¶24
W.P.C. No.12425 of 2012
Tribunal decision dated 22.03.2012Applied¶27
O.A. No.192 of 2010
Tribunal decision granting reliefFollowed¶27
O.A. No.41 of 2011
Sailendra Kumar Sahoo
Union of India
B.R. Sarangi
B.P. Satpathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
