Union of India Vs Aditya Prasad Panda — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Union of India Vs Aditya Prasad Panda — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed and the Tribunal's order dated 04.09.2024 in O.A. No.631 of 2017 was left undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether opp. party no.1 (Aditya Prasad Panda), being similarly placed like the applicants in O.A. No.1196 of 2004, could be directed by the Tribunal to be considered for the same benefits (with notional pay fixation and no actual financial benefits). +1 more

Court's answer

Since similarly situated persons had already obtained the relief (as upheld by this Court) and the matter had been remitted back for consideration of opp. party no.1's case, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

Ratio / Principle

There is neither any illegality nor impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

Key takeaways

The writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – Parity with similarly situated employees – Writ petition by Union of India against order dated 04.09.2024 of CAT, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.631 of 2017 dismissed. The Tribunal, having found opp. party no.1 (Aditya Prasad Panda) similarly placed like the applicants in O.A. No.1196 of 2004, had remitted the matter to the employer to consider his case for the benefits granted to those applicants, with notional pay fixation and no actual financial benefits, within a fixed time. The Tribunal's earlier order dated 23.07.2008 in O.A. No.1196 of 2004 and connected matters – rendered while holding itself bound by the Madras Bench decision, confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, that placement to LSG is promotion and not financial upgradation – was upheld by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16269 of 2008 (order dated 17.01.2012), and the SLPs thereagainst (S.L.P.(C) No.001213 of 2013 and S.L.P. C.C. No. 0225902012) were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Finding neither illegality nor impropriety in the impugned order, the Division Bench (S.K. Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.) declined interference and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits (order dated 11.08.2025).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4945 of 2025

Union of India and others …. Petitioners

Mr. Durga Prasad Pattnaik, Central Govt. Counsel

-versus-

Aditya Prasad Panda and another

…. Opp. Parties

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

11.08.2025

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

This writ petition has been filed by the petitionersUnion of India and others challenging the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter, “Tribunal”) in O.A. No.631 of 2017.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Aug-2025 10:50:31

As per the previous order of this Court dated 25.06.2025 as well as 30.07.2025, learned counsel for the Union of India has filed the copy of the order dated 23.07.2008 passed in O.A. No.1196 of 2004 and connected matters, in which in the case of similarly situated person, the learned Tribunal has passed the following orders:

“6. At the time of deciding similar grievance of similarly situated employees of the Postal

Page 1 of 4

Department in O.A. No.1223/03, the decision of the Full Bench was never brought to the notice of this Tribunal. However, on the basis of the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal, this Tribunal in its order dated 24^th June, 2008 directed the respondents to consider/reconsider the case of the applicant, therein, in the light of the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal.

Fact remains that the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal holds that placement to LSG are not a financial upgradation it is promotion which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. We are, therefore, bound by the said decision. Accordingly, we quash the order under Annexure-6 and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for grant of consequential relief as claimed in (b) above in the light of the decisions of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. All the drills shall be completed by the respondents within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above observations and directions, all these O.As. are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Learned counsel for the Union of India has also filed the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by this Court in

Page 2 of 4

W.P.(C) No.16269 of 2008, in which the order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid O.As. were challenged and this Court has been pleased to dismiss the same and the relevant part is quoted hereinbelow:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners, in this writ petition, have prayed to quash the impugned order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.1196/2004 and 1213/04 to 1221/04 under Annexure-3.

We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to be interfered with.

Accordingly, the writ petition stand dismissed.”

Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that challenging the order of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.1196 of 2004 and the connected cases dated 17.01.2012 so also the confirming order of this Court dated 17.01.2012 in W.P.(C) No.16269 of 2008 the matter was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.001213 of 2013 and S.L.P. C.C. No. 0225902012, but the aforesaid S.L.Ps. were dismissed. He has filed the copy of the order as above, which is taken on record.

When the learned Tribunal found that the opp. party no.1 Aditya Prasad Panda, the applicant in O.A. No.631 of 2017 is similarly placed like the applicants in O.A. No.1196 of 2004, it has remitted back the matter to

Page 3 of 4

the petitioners to consider the case of the opp. party no.1 for grant of benefits what has been granted to the applicants in O.A. No.1196 of 2004 and upheld by this Court. Learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold further that in the said event, the opp. party no.1 shall not be entitled to actual financial benefits and his pay will be fixed notionally and consequential order to that effect shall be passed by the competent authority and a time limit has been fixed for the entire exercise. When similarly situated persons have got the relief as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter has been remitted back to the petitioner for consideration of the case of the opp. party no.1, we don’t find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid order as there is neither any illegality nor impropriety in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Rajesh

Page 4 of 4