Allowed

Sudarshan Kar v. Union of India

Orissa HC14 Jul 2025WP(C)/26694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against Tribunal's refusal to amend a pending service application to challenge an order rejecting arrears of TRCA for a suspension period. High Court held amendment ought to have been allowed since the issue was already before the Tribunal and set aside the impugned order on hyper-technical grounds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 29.04.2024 set aside; M.A. No.187 of 2024 remitted to Tribunal to consider on merits and decide entire issue.

Sudarshan Kar Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.26694 of 2024

¶3

An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

¶4

¶5

Sudarshan Kar ....... Petitioner -Versus-

¶6

Union of India and others ....... Opp. Parties

¶7

For Petitioner: - Mr. Trilochan Rath, Advocate For Opp. Parties: - Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI along with Ms. S. Patra, CGC

¶8

¶9

P R E S E N T:

¶10

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶11

AND

¶12

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

¶13

Date of Hearing: 09.07.2025 Date of Order: 14.07.2025

¶14

¶15

S. S. Mishra, J: Sudarshan Kar has preferred the writ petition

¶16

assailing the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the

¶17

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

Cuttack (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A. No.187 of 2024 arising out of O.A. No.575 of 2018, whereby the application moved by him seeking amendment to the original application has been turned down.

¶20

The writ petitioner filed Original Application inter alia making the following prayer before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, which reads as under:-

¶21

“a) Quash the part of the order in which the period of suspension has been treated as no work no pay for all purposes vide Annexure-A/5 and also the order under Annexure-A/12, where the Superintendent of Post has requested CPMG, Odisha Circle to review and treat the period of suspension as duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

¶22

b) Issue mandate requiring the opposite parties/respondents treat the period of suspension till reinstatement as duty for all purposes and pay the arrear TRCA as entitled under law and revise the current TRCA according with immediate effect.

¶23

c) And pass any order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

While the O.A. was being heard, the

¶26

representation given by the writ petitioner to the Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar was turned down vide order dated 30.04.2019 on the grounds as reflecting in the Office Order dated 30.04.2019. For the sake of convenience, the operating part of the said order reproduced herein:-

¶27

“However taking all the facts into consideration and the punishment order vide SSPOs, Puri Division Memo No.F/Misc6/2006 dated 26.08.2014 and in the same order it was further ordered that the period of put off duty should be treated as no work no pay for all purposes and the TRCA paid to him so far during the period of put off duty should be limited to ex-gratia paid to him till the date of his reinstatement, I do not find any merit in this case and accordingly I considered and rejected the representation dated 17.05.2017 of Sri Kar.”

¶28

Since the issue regarding payment TRCA is

¶29

one of the issues in lis pending before the learned Tribunal in O.A. in subject, the writ petitioner also wanted to challenge the Office order dated 30.04.2019. However, copy of the said order dated 30.04.2019 was

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

not made available to him. In one of the hearing before the learned Tribunal on 21.02.2024, the opposite parties-Union of India produced the said Office order before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal in the order dated 21.02.2024 recorded as under:-

¶32

“Heard both sides.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents produces an order dated 30.04.2019 by which representation of the applicant has been disposed of.

¶34

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have today produced the said letter which was not filed along with the counter or reply to rejoinder filed earlier. He submitted that the said order needs to be challenged for better adjudication of the case.

¶35

Respondents to file the said documents in shape of affidavit after serving copy on other side.

¶36

Applicant if so advised may file MA for amendment.

¶37

The matter is released from part heard. List on 11.03.2024 under orders.”

¶38

Pursuant to the aforementioned direction, the opposite parties filed an affidavit dated 06.03.2024 and brought on record the aforementioned order dated

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

30.04.2019. Paragraph-1 of the affidavit filed on behalf

¶41

of the opposite parties is relevant, which reads thus:-

¶42

“1. That, the above case was listed on 21.02.2024 for part heard. During the hearing of the respondents side, the counsel for the respondents submitted the memo no. DC/69-03/2019 dtd. 30.04.2019 for appraisal and better adjudication of the case. Wherein the CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar has been pleased to reject the representation dtd.17.05.2017 of the applicant for allowing him the full allowance for the period of put off duty.”

¶43

Reading of the order dated 21.02.2024 and

¶44

paragraph-1 of the affidavit dated 06.03.2024, makes it abundantly clear that the issue of claim of TRCA by the writ petitioner has been sub-judice before the learned Tribunal. Confronted with such situation, the writ petitioner moved M.A. No.187 of 2024 seeking amendment to the O.A. so as to challenge the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar.

¶45

The application is annexed as Annexure-6 to

¶46

the writ petition. For the sake of brevity the contents of

¶47

Page 5 of 8

¶48

the application are not reiterated herein but suffice it to say that through the application, the writ petitioner wanted to assail the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar. The said application for amendment has been turned down by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order primarily on two grounds that the matter (O.A.) has already been part heard and secondly, that the Rule 17(6) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 does not permit the parties to amend the pleadings in the same manner as provided under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

¶49

Mr. Trilochan Rath, learned counsel appearing

¶50

for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI for Union of India has been heard in extenso.

¶51

We have perused the entire record placed before us. We are of the considered view that by the prayer No.(b) before the Tribunal in O.A., the petitioner has already claimed the arrears of TRCA. Vide order

¶52

Page 6 of 8

¶53

dated 30.04.2019, the Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar has rejected the claim of TRCA. Therefore, the petitioner is rightly aggrieved by the said order. The issue being sub-judice before the learned Tribunal, he has moved appropriate application for amendment which ought to have been allowed. However, the learned Tribunal on hyper-technical grounds have rejected the same by the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 which is not tenable under law. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in M.A. No.187 of 2024 arising out of O.A. No.575 of 2018 and direct the learned Tribunal to consider the M.A. No.187 of 2024 on merits and pass appropriate order and consolidately decide the entire issue in lis before it as has been raised by the petitioner.

¶54

Page 7 of 8

¶55

With this observation, the writ petition is

¶56

allowed and disposed of.

¶57

S.S. Mishra, J.

¶58

S.K. Sahoo, J . I agree.

¶59

S. K. Sahoo, J.

¶60

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 14^th July, 2025/ Swarna

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Jul-2025 17:31:48

¶63

Page 8 of 8

Sudarshan Kar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Kar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

Union of India Vs Samuel Ekka

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

Sreedhar Kumar Sen Vs State of Orissa