Disposed¶20

Padma Mahanty v. Union of India

Orissa HC25 Aug 2025WP(C)/23603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC writ disposal 25.08.2025; Padma Mahanti v. Union of India; CAT Cuttack O.A. 268/2025 deputation continuance refused; interlocutory observations on merits not to prejudice final hearing; Tribunal free to take different view; sealed cover production of Ministry File No.19011-07-2020-IFS-I; pleadings completion 24.10.2025; early final hearing expected.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with protective observations: the Tribunal's merit-touching observations in the impugned order shall not be a ground to reject the prayer in the O.A.; the Tribunal remains at liberty to take a different view after pleadings and hearing; earliest final hearing expected; Ministry File No.19011-07-2020-IFS-I, if produced, to come before the Tribunal in a sealed cover. ¶20

Padma Mahanty Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations made by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 31.07.2025 in O.A. No. 268 of 2025, which touched points on the merits of the Original Application while the matter remained sub judice, should be permitted to influence the final adjudication of the O.A.

¶16

Court's answer

Any observation made in the impugned order touching the merit of the Original Application shall not be a ground to reject the prayer made in the Original Application, and the learned Tribunal is at liberty to take a different view after considering the pleadings and hearing the respective parties.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is sub judice before the learned Tribunal, which has directed the opposite parties to produce files and fixed 24th October 2025 for completion of pleadings, this Court expects that after pleadings are complete the matter will be taken up at the earliest for final hearing.

¶19

Key takeaways

In case the opposite parties produce the Ministry File No.19011-07-2020-IFS-I, the same shall be produced in a sealed cover before the learned Tribunal.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (S.K. Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.) — W.P.(C) No.23603 of 2025, disposed of on 25.08.2025 — Petitioner challenged the order dated 31.07.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (O.A. No.268 of 2025, Annexure-3) declining to allow her to continue on deputation, contending that observations therein touching the merits had made the O.A. practically infructuous — With the matter sub judice before the Tribunal (files to be produced before the regular counter; pleadings to be completed by 24.10.2025), the Court held that any observation in the impugned order touching the merit of the O.A. shall not be a ground to reject the prayer made therein, and the Tribunal is at liberty to take a different view after considering the pleadings and hearing the parties; the Court expects the matter to be taken up for final hearing at the earliest once pleadings are complete; Ministry File No.19011-07-2020-IFS-I, if produced by the opposite parties, is to be placed before the Tribunal in a sealed cover.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.23603 of 2025

¶3

Padma Mahanti

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr.Swapna Kumar Ojha, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Union of India and and others …. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. J.N. Panda, CGC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

Order No.

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 25.08.2025

¶12

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Padma Mahanti challenging the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 268 of 2025 under Annexure-3 whereby the learned Tribunal declined to allow the petitioner to continue on deputation.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by passing the impugned order, some of the observations, which have been made while passing the impugned order, have made the Original Application practically infructuous and the learned Tribunal has touched some points on the merits of the case, which ought not to have been done while passing the impugned order.

¶17

After going through the impugned order and on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the view that since the matter is subjudice before the learned Tribunal, who has directed the opposite parties (respondents in

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

O.A.) to produce some files before filing regular counter and directed completion of pleading by 24^th October 2025, this Court expects that after pleadings are complete, the matter will be taken up at the earliest for final hearing and any observation made in the impugned order touching the merit of the Original Application shall not be a ground to reject the prayer made in the Original Application and the learned Tribunal is at liberty to take a different view after considering the pleadings and hearing the respective parties. In case the opposite parties produce the Ministry File No.19011-07-2020-IFS-I, the same shall be produced in a sealed cover before the learned Tribunal.

¶20

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶22

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶23

PKSahoo

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 26-Aug-2025 13:01:45