Dismissed¶57

Union of India v. Samuel Ekka

Orissa HC14 Jul 2025WP(C)/13548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India v. Samuel Ekka; W.P.(C) No.13548 of 2024; High Court of Orissa; consequential benefits; back wages; pay as Chief Office Superintendent Level-7 from 15.04.2014 to 08.12.2017; quashing of inquiry report dated 25.03.2014, disciplinary order dated 15.04.2014 and appellate order dated 11.07.2014; O.A. No.648/2014 order dated 08.12.2017; contempt C.P. No.65/2019 dropped; review R.A. dismissed 19.10.2023; Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench; Shiv Nandan Mahtor (2013) 11 SCC 626; no illegality or perversity; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Claiming pay of Chief Office Superintendent from 15.04.2014 (date of reversion) till 08.12.2017 (date of the first Tribunal judgment) is a consequential service benefit, and the opposite party's right and claim is clearly covered by the earlier Tribunal order.

Union of India Vs Samuel Ekka — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite party (Samuel Ekka) is entitled to pay as Chief Office Superintendent (Level-7) for the period 15.04.2014 to 08.12.2017 as a consequential service benefit flowing from the quashing of the inquiry report, disciplinary order and appellate order, although the earlier Tribunal judgment of 08.12.2017 contained no express consequential-benefits direction. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are duty bound and legally obliged to grant the opposite party the pay he is entitled to as Chief Office Superintendent with effect from 15.04.2014, since he was reverted to Senior Clerk due to the departmental proceeding and all those proceedings have since been set aside.

¶54

Key takeaways

No illegality or perversity is found in the Tribunal's orders dated 21.06.2021 (O.A. No.816 of 2019) and 19.10.2023 (review application); consequently the writ petition has no merit.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (S.K. Sahoo and S.S. Mishra, JJ.) — Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.13548 of 2024) by Union of India challenging CAT Cuttack Bench orders dated 21.06.2021 in O.A. No.816 of 2019 and dated 19.10.2023 dismissing review — DISMISSED. Held: where the Tribunal's earlier judgment dated 08.12.2017 in O.A. No.648 of 2014 quashed the inquiry report, the disciplinary order and the appellate authority's order, grant of pay as Chief Office Superintendent (Level-7) from 15.04.2014, the date of reversion, till 08.12.2017 is itself a consequential service benefit covered by that earlier order; absence of an express consequential-benefits direction does not defeat the claim, and the employer is duty bound and legally obliged to pay. No illegality or perversity found in the impugned orders; the Tribunal's approach, which took into account Shiv Nandan Mahtor vrs. State of Bihar, (2013) 11 SCC 626, was found justified.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.13548 of 2024

¶3

Union of India & others …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, Central Government Counsel

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Samuel Ekka

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. Niranjan Biswal, Advocate (Caveator)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

14.07.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party (caveator).

¶17

Pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2024, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) has been deposited by the Union of India in the Orissa High Court Advocates’ Welfare Fund. Receipt to that effect has been filed, which is taken on record.

¶18

Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he does not want to file any counter affidavit.

¶19

Page 1 of 10

¶20

This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and others challenging the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.816 of 2019 whereby the Original Application filed by the opposite party Samuel Ekka has been allowed and the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in R.A. No.260/0009 of 2021 in dismissing the review application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

¶21

The facts of the case in terse is that the applicant had earlier filed one Original Application bearing O.A. No.648 of 2014 challenging the inquiry report, order of punishment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority, who had confirmed the demotion of the opposite party. The learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 08.12.2017 (AnnexureA/5) quashed the inquiry report, order of disciplinary authority as well as order of the appellate authority. The applicant submitted that after receipt of the order, he filed a representation for implementation of the judgment. The respondent, while implementing the judgment/order, although restored the applicant to his original post i.e. Chief Office Superintendent, Level-7 with effect from 16.04.2014 from the date of

¶22

Page 2 of 10

¶23

demotion, but did not allow to draw his pay against the said post from the dated of demotion i.e. 16.04.2016 to the date of Tribunal’s order i.e. 08.12.2017.

¶24

The applicant filed C.P. No.65/2019. The learned Tribunal held that since no order was passed with regard to grant of consequential benefits and the contemnor’s have substantially complied with the judgment/order, accordingly, the Contempt was dropped. However, granted liberty to pursue the remedies if the opposite party aggrieved and cause of action survives.

¶25

The opposite party has again filed a separate Original Application bearing O.A. No.816 of 2019 before the learned Tribunal claiming pay of Chief Office Superintendent from 15.04.2014 to 08.12.2017. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order, allowed the same. Hence, the petitioners-Union of India have filed the present writ application assailing the impugned order.

¶26

The petitioners, on being noticed by the learned Tribunal, filed counter affidavit to the Original Application No.816 of 2019 and contested the same. In paragraph-3 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal dealt with the case of the petitioners, which reads thus:

¶27

Page 3 of 10

¶28

“In the order dated 08.12.2017 in OA No.648/2014 the Tribunal had held “OA is allowed. Inquiry Report dated 25.03.2014 (Annexure A/10), Disciplinary order dated 15.04.204 (Annexure A/11) and appellate authority order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure A/14) are hereby quashed. No costs”, but no order of granting of consequential benefits was given the respondents have implemented the order and restored the applicant’s pay as Ch. OS w.e.f. 16.04.2014 and pay has been drawn from 08.12.2017. The respondents further submitted that this Tribunal while adjudicating the CP No.65/2019 had also held that “It is seen that as per order dated 08.12.2017, this Tribunal has quashed the enquiry report, order of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and no further consequential reliefs were granted in the said order. Therefore this Tribunal is not satisfied that any ground has been made out to issue notice on contempt. Accordingly CP is dropped.” Hence the applicant is not entitled to any consequential reliefs as claimed by him in the present OA.”

¶29

It appears that the Original Application filed by the opposite party was allowed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.260/648 of 2014 vide order dated 18.12.2017 quashing the inquiry report dated 25.03.2014 and the disciplinary order dated 15.04.2014 and the appellate authority’s order dated 11.07.2014, but no specific observation was made in regard to the prayer made by the opposite party with respect to grant of all service and consequential benefits while the opposite party was not functioning in the post because of reversion order. When the opposite party filed the contempt petition vide C.P. No.260/65 of 2019, the

¶30

Page 4 of 10

¶31

learned Tribunal, vide order dated 01.10.2019, was pleased to hold that no ground has been made out to issue notice on the contempt and accordingly dropped the contempt petition but gave liberty to the opposite party to take necessary legal steps, if he is otherwise aggrieved. Accordingly, the second Original Application bearing O.A. No.260/816/2019 was filed in which specific prayer has been made by the opposite party to modify the order dated 12.09.2018 under Annexure-A/6 to the extent that the opposite party be allowed to draw his salary against the post of Chief Office Superintendent, Level-7 with effect from 16.04.2014 instead of 18.08.2017 the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Prayer was also made to direct the petitioners to restore the opposite party in the post of Chief Office Superintendent, Level-7 with effect from 16.04.2014 with all service and consequential benefits within the time limit. The prayer of the opposite party was allowed and the operative part of the order reads thus:

¶32

“12…….. Of course if the applicant has not worked as Chief Office Superintendent w.e.f. 15.04.2014 to 08.12.2017, then he may not be entitled for any particular allowances like travelling allowance etc. to which a person is normally entitled if he works in that capacity on day to day basis for that period. But claiming pay of Chief Office Superintendent w.e.f. 15.04.2014 till 08.12.2017 does not at all come under scope and ambit of consequential benefit and the right and claim of the applicant in the present OA is clearly covered

¶33

Page 5 of 10

¶34

by earlier order passed by this Tribunal vide annexure A/3 and therefore the respondents were duty bound and legally obliged to grant pay in favour of the applicant, which he was entitled to in his capacity as Chief Office Superintendent w.e.f. 15.04.2014.”

¶35

13. “Accordingly the OA is allowed, the respondents are directed to grant the pay in question to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No cost.”

¶36

It appears that review petition against the aforementioned order was filed by the petitioners vide R.A. No.9 of 2021 and the same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 19.10.2023 and the learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold as follows:

¶37

“8. It is not the case of the Review Applicants that there was any apparent error on the face of record leading review of the same. Rather it appears that the Applicants seek for rehearing of the matter on merit which is impermissible in law. Thus, going by the stand point of the Review Applicants vis-à-vis the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is at a loss to come to the conclusion that there was any error apparent on the face of record requiring review of the order.

¶38

9. In view of the above, this RA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

¶39

While passing the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 in O.A. No.816 of 2019, the learned Tribunal has taken into account the ratio laid down by

¶40

Page 6 of 10

¶41

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Nandan Mahtor -Vrs.- State of Bihar and others reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 626 , wherein considering the factual scenario of that case, it has been held that since the appellant in that case was kept out of service on account of suspension then he could not have been denied the benefit of back wages on the ground that he has not worked for the period when he was illegally kept out of service and therefore, direction was issued in the said case. It was held that the appellant was entitled to the service benefits when he was kept out of service.

¶42

Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel argued that the opposite party was not kept out of service but on account of initiation of the departmental proceeding, he was ultimately reverted to the post of Senior Clerk and the inquiry report was submitted against him, which was affirmed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority and after all these orders were quashed by the learned Tribunal, he has been taken into service. Thus, he is not entitled to get the consequential service benefits and therefore, the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal passed in O.A. No.816 of 2019 so also the review petition should be quashed.

¶43

Page 7 of 10

¶44

On a careful analysis of the first judgment, which was passed by the learned Tribunal, we find that the inquiry report, disciplinary order and the appellate authority’s order were quashed assigning the reasons therein, which reads as under:

¶45

“5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on some citations including the following:

¶46

a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Nandan Mahtor vrs State of Bihar and others (2013) 11 SCC 626.

¶47

6. We have heard learned counsels for both the sides, gone through their pleadings, materials on record and citations relied by them. The order of reversion vide Annexure A/3 was passed on 15.04.2024. The previous OA was disposed of on 08.12.2017 by quashing the order of punishment of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that this Tribunal in earlier OA had not passed any order for consequential benefit and that the applicant has not challenged the said order by filing any Review Application before this Tribunal or by filing any writ application before Hon’ble high court. Hence it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant is not entitled for any such consequential benefits. It has to be examined as to whether any order for consequential benefit was required to be passed by the Tribunal and if in the absence of any specific order granted by the Tribunal in the previous OA for grant of consequential benefit, whether the applicant can be given the differential pay and other consequential benefits, in view of quashing of punishment order vide annexure A/3 by this Tribunal in previous OA.

¶48

7. The applicant was working as Chief Office Superintendent One departmental proceeding was initiated against him as per charge memo dated 11.11.2013. The punishment order dated

¶49

Page 8 of 10

¶50

15.04.2014 vide Annexure A/3 passed by the disciplinary authority imposed on the applicant is as follows:

¶51

“Reduction to Sr. Clerk in PB-1 with pay Rs.18,830/- & GP Rs.2800/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect.”

¶52

8. The said punishment order was confirmed by appellant authority vide order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure A/4). The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal earlier by filing one OA No.648/2014. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure A/5) with the following order:

¶53

“O.A. is allowed. Inquiry Report dated 25.03.2014 (Annexure A/10), Disciplinary order dated 15.04.2014 (Annexure A/12) and the Appellant Authority order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure A/14) are hereby quashed. No costs.”

¶54

The learned Tribunal is quite justified in holding that claiming pay of the Chief Office Superintendent with effect from 15.04.2014 i.e. the date of reversion till 08.12.2017 the date of judgment being the consequential service benefit, the right and claim of the opposite party is clearly covered by the earlier order passed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the petitioners are duty bound and legally obliged to grant the pay in favour of the opposite party, which he is entitled to in the capacity as Chief Office Superintendent with effect from 15.04.2014 because of the initiation of the departmental proceeding, since the opposite party was reverted to the post of Senior

¶55

Page 9 of 10

¶56

Clerk and ultimately all those proceedings have been set aside, then the claim of the opposite party is quite justified. We find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal dated 21.06.2021 so also the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in the review application.

¶57

Therefore, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶58

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶59

Subhasis

¶60

( S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:56:24

¶63

Page 10 of 10

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 21.06.2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.816 of 2019 allowing the opposite party's claim for pay as Chief Office Superintendent from 15.04.2014 to 08.12.2017, together with the order dated 19.10.2023 dismissing the petitioners' review application (cited as R.A. No.260/0009 of 2021 and as R.A. No.9 of 2021); both assailed in this writ petition.¶20
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack · 21.06.2021
Prior proceeding
Applicant (Samuel Ekka) earlier filed O.A. No.648 of 2014 challenging the inquiry report, punishment order and appellate authority order that had confirmed his demotion.¶21
Prior proceeding
Tribunal order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure A/5) in O.A. No.648 of 2014 quashed the inquiry report, disciplinary authority's order and appellate authority's order; no express consequential-benefits direction was given.¶21
Prior proceeding
On implementation, the applicant was restored as Chief Office Superintendent, Level-7 w.e.f. 16.04.2014 but pay was not allowed for the period of demotion up to the Tribunal's order date (08.12.2017).¶23
Prior proceeding
Applicant filed C.P. No.65/2019; the Tribunal found substantial compliance (no consequential-benefits order having been passed) and dropped the contempt, granting liberty to pursue remedies if aggrieved.¶24
Prior proceeding
Per the judgment's later narration, the contempt petition (C.P. No.260/65 of 2019) was dropped by Tribunal order dated 01.10.2019 with liberty to take necessary legal steps if otherwise aggrieved.¶31
Prior proceeding
Second Original Application O.A. No.816 of 2019 filed claiming pay as Chief Office Superintendent from 15.04.2014 to 08.12.2017; allowed by the Tribunal (impugned order dated 21.06.2021).¶25
Prior proceeding
In O.A. No.816/2019 the applicant prayed for modification of order dated 12.09.2018 (Annexure-A/6) to draw salary as Chief Office Superintendent, Level-7 from 16.04.2014 (instead of 18.08.2017), with restoration and all service and consequential benefits; the prayer was allowed.¶31
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed review R.A. No.9 of 2021 against the O.A. order; disposed of by Tribunal order dated 19.10.2023 (elsewhere cited as R.A. No.260/0009 of 2021).¶36
Prior proceeding
Review order (quoted paras 8–9): no apparent error on the face of record; seeking rehearing on merit impermissible in law; RA dismissed with parties to bear their own costs.¶37

Union of India v. Samuel Ekka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Samuel Ekka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Dash Vs the State Bank of India, Phulbani Branch,Kandhamal

Sridhar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Kumar Churiwal Vs a.O., Icici Bank Ltd., Bbsr

Arefun Nisha Vs the Authorised Officer, Icici Bank Ltd., Kolkata

Sudarshan Kar Vs Union of India

Sreedhar Kumar Sen Vs State of Orissa