Dipti Kumar Mahanta Vs Union of India

Petitioner was before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No.629 of 2016, wherein, inter alia, he had laid a challenge to the order dated 29.01.2016, whereby his request for the conferment of temporary status was negatived on the sole ground that the application was time barred in terms of Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned order before the Tribunal was dated 29.01.2016 and that O.A. having been filed in the very same year, the question of delay would remain miles away from the conspectus of Section 21 of 1985 Act and therefore, there being an error apparent on the face of the record, interference of this Court is eminently warranted.

¶15

Learned Senior Panel Counsel representing the Union Government and its Officials vehemently opposed the

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶19

4.1. Section 21 of the 1985 Act enacts the Rule of limitation of one year with power to condone the delay, if any. The reckoning of the period of one year has to be from the date of the order that had been put in challenge at the hands of the Tribunal. In the instant case, the impugned order before the Tribunal was dated 29.01.2016, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-6. The same has been issued by the Superintendent of Post-Offices, Mayurbhanj Division, Baripada. By this order, the prayer of the Petitioner for conferment of temporary status has been rejected on the ground that Petitioner is in the part time service, and that conferment avails only to full timers.

¶20

4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that even by simple primary school level arithmetic calculation, the O.A. No.629 of 2016 was filed well within one year, which is to be reckoned from 29.01.2016, we agree with this. Thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the order of the Tribunal challenged before us.

¶21

4.3. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in OJC No.5246 of 2001 between Union of India & others. v.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Ranjan Kumar Nayak & others disposed off on 29.03.2010 has specifically observed that even a part timer is also entitled to conferment of temporary status. This order has been made in the light of the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Young John Rose v. HRO, RMS, Trivandrum Division, (1992) 2 SLJ (CAT) 243 . Be that as it may, we do not examine this aspect of the matter, since the same pertains to the domain of the Tribunal in the light of decisions of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.

¶24

In the above circumstances, this Petition having been allowed, a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal. Matter is remitted to the portals of the Tribunal for consideration afresh keeping open all contentions except the issue of limitation, which would not arise in the matter. So far as challenge to the order dated 29.01.2016 made by the Superintendent of Post is concerned, all contentions are kept open. Tribunal is requested to hear and dispose off the O.A. within an outer limit of six months.

¶25

Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶26

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶27

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶28

Bijay/Sarbani

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:34:21

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Dipti Kumar Mahanta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipti Kumar Mahanta v. Union of India

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 Kalpana Nayak

Commissioner,Cuttack Municipal Corporation,Cuttack Vs Radha Krisna Dash

Principal Secy. to Govt. Vs Ashok Kumar Pattanayak

Principal Secy, Social Security and Empowerment of Persons With Disabilities Deptt Vs Sitaram Dakua

Kishori Mohanty Vs Executive Engineer (Electrical) Bcdd Ii, Tpcodl, Bbsr

Union of India Vs Sidda Gopaludu