Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Kailash Chandra Mohanty vs Posts on 25 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021
Reserved on: 16.03.2026 Pronounced on: 25.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Shri Kailash Chandra Mohanty, aged 63
years, S/o. Late Bhramarbar Mohanty,
retd. Senior Postmaster, At-Rankia, Po.
Guneibil, Via-Marthapur, PS-
Kamakhyanagar, Dist. Dhenkanal at
present address: Plot No. 827/8A, PO-
Mahalaxmi Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Dist.
Khurda, Pin- 751 029.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Orissa
Circle, Bhubaneswar, At/Po. Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda, Pin-751001.
3. The Director of Postal Account, At/Po.
Mahanadi Vihar, Dist. Cuttack-753004.
4. Asst. Director General (SGP), Dak Bhavan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
5. Director Generasl of Pots, Dak Bhavan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.Mohanty, Counsel
For the respondents :Mr. R.K.Sahoo, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.25
10:10:31 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant has filed this Original Application u/s.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, inter alia, seeking direction to the Respondents to revise & release the differential amount of pension and other pensoinary dues such as gratuity, commuted value of pension etc by taking into consideration 50% of his last pay which he was drawing on the date of retirement i.e. 30.04.2010 by quash the rejection of such prayer by the Respondents vide order under Annexure-6 dated 06.10.2021.
2. Respondents filed their counter objecting & contesting the case of the Applicant and, the applicant has also filed rejoinder trying to justify his claim made in the OA.
3. Having heard the parties perused the records.
4. In this case, the Applicant while working as ASPO was promoted to PSS, Group 'B' cadre on ad-hoc basis for a period of one year or till posting of PS Group B officer on regular basis whichever is earlier and posted to Balasore RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:10:31 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021 Division vide Memo dated 21.11.2005. While continuing as such, on his regular promotion to PSS Group B vide letter dated 26.08.2008, he was posted to Bardwan South Bengal Region, Kolkata and, thereafter, reposted to Orissa Circle and retired from service in the afternoon of 30.04.2010.
Since his adhoc promotion in PSS Group B was beyond one year without the approval of the DoP&T as required vide DoP&T OM dated 18.08.2004, an amount of Rs. 44,690/- was recovered towards excess payment made to the applicant due to non regularization of his ad hoc period of promotion to PSS Group B, beyond one year. As against such recovery, he submitted representation and alleging non consideration of his representation he approached before this Bench in OA No. 1040/2012 which was disposed of on 02.07.2013 with direction to consider his representation. The Respondents considered but rejected his representation; which order had been challenged by RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:10:31 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021 the Applicant before this Bench in OA No. 480 of 2014, inter alia praying as under:
".....a direction be given to the respondent NO.2 by set aside the order dated 17/18.08.2010 vide Annexure-8 recovering amount of Rs.44,690.00 from the gratuity being the overpaid salary and the order of the Respondent No.4 vide Anenxure-10 dated 17.01.2014 be set aside and further direction be given to approve the ad hoc period of the applicant in PSS Group-B cadre for the period from 25.11.2005 to 08.02.2009 and to allow the due interest on gratuity for delay payment."
[emphasis added] The said OA No. 480 of 2014 was disposed of by this Bench vide order dated 20th December, 2016 with observation and direction as under:
"......Hence, both the impugned orders dated 17/18.08.2010 (Annexure-8) and dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure-10) are quashed and the Respondents are directed to release the withhold gratuity of the Applicant and make payment of Rs. 44,690/- to the applicant within a period of 60 days of receipt of a copy of this order....."
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:10:31 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021
5. From the pleadings it is clear that the basic pay which he was drawing in the time scale of the post of PSS Group B was revised since his ad hoc service beyond one year was not approved by DoP&T; which he had although prayed for regularization in the earlier OA, no such direction was issued to the Respondents to approve the ad hoc period of the applicant in PSS Group-B cadre for the period from 25.11.2005 to 08.02.2009 and to allow the due interest on gratuity for delay payment. The Applicant accepted the order of this Bench in other words, the order of this Bench was set at rest and as admitted by the Applicant, in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Bench the withheld amount was released in favour of the Applicant. Now, in this OA, in fact and in effect has sought direction for approval of the period during which he continued on ad hoc basis in PSS Group B and accordingly, his pension and gratuity should be fixed and paid to him.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:10:31 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021
6. It is a well-settled principle, recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a specific manner, it must be performed in that manner or not at all, with other methods of performance necessarily forbidden. Further, it is now a well settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly ["Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"] vide Supertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819.
7. Further more, Law is well settled that res judicata can operate if a subsequent case is filed with the same prayer after a previous case was disposed of as "infructuous" or for similar reasons, provided the earlier decision was on the merits, final, and involved the same parties and substantially the same issues. The principle's goal is to give finality to court decisions and prevent endless litigation, so even if a case was dismissed for being infructuous, it can still bar a RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:10:31 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021 new suit on the same matter. Further, "Henderson Principle"
was approvingly referred to and applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs Nawab Hussain, (1997) 2 SCC 806, as the underlying principle for res-judicata and constructive res-judicata for assuring finality to litigation.
The 'Henderson Principle' is a foundational doctrine in common law that addresses the issue of multiplicity in litigation. It embodies the broader concept of procedural fairness, abuse of process and judicial efficiency by mandating that all claims and issues that could and ought to have been raised in a previous litigation should not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings.
8. It is noted that justification of making rectification of error at a later stage in the matter of fixation of pay occasioned due to grant of financial up gradation by misconstruing the ACP guidelines came up consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court Raj Kumar Baltra v State of Harayana, (1992) 1 SCC 129 and Naurang Singh & RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:10:31 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021 Others, AIR ONLINE 1997 SC 335 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that as and when the mistake is detected the authority is within its right to rectify the same and the mistake can be rectified at any point of time.
9. It is a established legal principles that no discretion is left with the executive to act or grant benefits to an employee contrary to Rules/law nor employees can claim immunity to retain financial benefits or advantages (such as wrongful pay fixation or promotion) that they are not legally entitled to, even if they received them through an administrative error.
10. In the DoP&T OM dated 18.08.2004 it has clearly been stated that ad hoc promotion will be limited to one year only. In case it is envisaged to extend the ad hoc arrangement beyond one year, approval of DoP&T is required in advance. If the approval of DoP&T to the continuance of ad hoc arrangement beyond one year is not received before expiry of one year period the ad hoc arrangement shall RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:10:31 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021 automatically ceases after one year period. It is not the case of the applicant that the aforesaid DoP&T OM has no application to his case nor is it his case that his continuance beyond one year on ad hoc basis was with the approval of the DoP&T. It is also noted that the principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppels. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are 'cause of action estoppel' and 'issue estoppel'.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.25 10:10:31 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/000542 of 2021
11. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we hold that the present case besides being suffered from the doctrine/principle of res judicata as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nawab Hussain (supra), also sans any merit on the face of the DoP&T OM dated 18.08.2004. Accordingly, this OA stands dismissed. Pending MAs, if any also stand disposed of. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.25
10:10:31 +05'30'