Dismissed¶14

Union of India v. Sk. Kudrat Ali

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack – WP(C) No.22616 of 2025

Orissa HC12 Jan 2026WP(C)/22616/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court writ dismissal; Union of India v. Sk. Kudrat Ali; parity/stare decisis with finalized precedent Subodha Kumar Nayak (WP(C) 22554/2024); CAT Cuttack order dated 09.05.2025 implemented; regularization from 12.08.1993 for pension only; Old Railway Pension Rules; 60-day implementation deadline; Registrar General compliance report; warning of personal-capacity costs and punitive action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with directions: petitioners to implement the Tribunal's order within 60 days and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. ¶14

Union of India Vs Sk. Kudrat Ali — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed with directions: petitioners to implement the Tribunal's order within 60 days and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the Union Government's writ assailing the Tribunal's order dated 09.05.2025 (whereby the Opposite Parties' O.A. No.260/00109 of 2022 was favoured and relief accorded) can succeed. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

This petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

What has happened in the Subodha Kumar Nayak case should come to the rescue of the Opposite Parties on the principle of parity, as no inconsistent factors come from the record.

¶13

Key takeaways

The petitioners shall implement the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack within an outer limit of 60 days.ratio¶15
Petitioners to report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court; failing which, at the next level of legal battle, heavy costs payable by the officials in their personal capacity may be imposed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — WP(C) No.22616 of 2025 — Union of India & Ors. (Petitioners, by CGC G.K. Nayak) v. Sk. Kudrat Ali & Anr. (Opposite Parties, by Adv. J. Pattanaik) — Order dated 12.01.2026 — Coram: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad; Justice Chittaranjan Dash. The Union Government assailed the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack order dated 09.05.2025, whereby O.A. No.260/00109 of 2022 was allowed: applicants to be treated as regularized from 12.08.1993 only for pension and pensionary benefits, order dated 10.01.2022 quashed, coverage under the Old Railway Pension Rules directed, completion within 120 days. The petition had been admitted in the light of the cognate WP(C) No.22554 of 2024 (Union of India v. Subodha Kumar Nayak, decided 15.12.2025 by a co-ordinate Bench), which has attained finality with no further Apex Court challenge, as conceded by the CGC. Holding that like cases should be decided alike, and finding no inconsistent factors, the Court applied parity and dismissed the writ petition, costs being made easy; petitioners directed to implement the impugned Tribunal order within 60 days and report compliance to the Registrar General, failing which personal costs on officials and punitive action loom at the next level.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22616 of 2025

¶2

Union of India & Ors. …. Petitioners Represented by Adv.Mr. G.K. Nayak, CGC -versus- Sk. Kudrat Ali & Anr. …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.Mr. J. Pattanaik, Adv.

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶5

ORDER

¶6

12.01.2026

¶7

Order No. 06. Union Government and its officials are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the order dated 09.05.2025, whereby Opposite Parties’ O.A. No.260/00109 of 2022 having been favoured, relief has been accorded to them in the following terms:

¶8

“7. It may be noted that the doctrine of precedent, also known as "stare decisis." is a fundamental principle in common law systems, which requires courts to follow previous decisions when deciding cases with similar facts or legal issues. This ensures consistency and predictability in the application of law. On examination of the facts and issues involved in this case with the case earlier decided by this Bench, referred to above, we do not find any merit to differ from the view already taken in the case of Subodh Kumar Nayak (supra). In the circumstances. The Respondents are hereby directed to treat the applicants to

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

have been regularized with effect from the date when others were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits without any back wages seniority etc and accordingly, the order dated 10.01.2022 is hereby quashed with direction to bring them within the purview of Old Railway Pension Rules and. thereafter, process their pension case and grant them pension and pensionary benefits. The entire action shall be completed within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

8. In the result this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. No costs.”

¶12

Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits and learned CGC appearing for the petitioners-Union Government does not dispute that the relief has been accorded to the Opposite Parties and that the petition has been admitted in the light of another cognate case in WP(C) No.22554 of 2024 between Union of India and others v. Subodha Kumar Nayak , decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2025, supportive of case of the Opposite Parties. On being asked, learned CGC in all fairness submits that the decision in Subodha Kumar Nayak has attained the finality, there being no further challenge thereto in the Apex Court.

¶13

It has been a cardinal principle of adjudicatory process that like cases should decided alike and therefore what has happened to Subodha Kumar Nayak ’s case should come to the rescue of Opposite Parties herein on the principle of parity, no inconsistent factors coming from the record.

¶14

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶15

The petitioners shall implement the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack within an outer limit of 60 days and

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court, failing which in the next level of legal battle, heavy costs payable by the officials in their personal capacity may be imposed, in addition to other punitive action. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶18

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶19

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶20

Prasanta

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 13-Jan-2026 13:54:27

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Union of India v. Sk. Kudrat Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Sk. Kudrat Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Amiya Kanti Patnaik

Union of India Vs Satyabrata Dhupal

Parsuram Routray Vs the Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kendrapara