Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Dr P N Mohanty vs Steel Authority Of India on 8 August, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019
Reserved on 04.08.2025 Pronounced on 08.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Prabhat Nalini Mohanty, aged about 65
years, W/o Sri Hurdayaballav Das, residing at
Plot No- HIG-18, Phase-VII, Sailashree Vihar,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751021, Dist.:
Khurda, Odisha. Substituted by LRs :
1. Manoj Kumar Das, aged about 42 years, S/o:
Late Dr. Pravat Nalini Mohanty (Mother) and
Late Hrudaya Ballav Das (Father).
2. Mrinal Das, aged about 41 years, W/O: Mr. M.
Stoots, D/o Late Dr Pravat Nalini Mohanty
(Mother) and Late Hrudaya Ballav Das (Father)
3. Mala Das, aged about 36 years, D/o: Late Dr.
Pravat Nalini Moharity (Mother) and Late
Hrudaya Ballav Das (Father)
.....Applicants
VERSUS
Steel Authority of India Limited, Represented
through its Managing Director, Rourkela Steel
Plant, Rourkela, Dist.: Sundergarh, Odisha.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. P.C.Sethi, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. T.K.Pattnaik, N.K.Sahu, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2025.08.08 14:15:27
+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Dr. Prabhat Nalini Mohanty, filed this OA on 08.03.2016 praying for direction to the respondent (SAIL) to give her the arrear salary with all consequential service benefits w.e.f. 02.06.1997 and interest @ 18% from 01.01.1998 and @ 24% w.e.f. 01.09.2015. Due to her death on 13.06.2021 during pendency of this OA, she has been substituted by her LRs to pursue this case.
2. The backgrounds of the case, as revealed from the record, are that she joined on 08.05.1978 as Jr. Medical Officer in Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela and, by efflux of time, she was promoted on 30.06. 1996, to the post of Senior Deputy Director (Medical & Health Services (E-6 Grade) in O&G Department of Ispat General Hospital. On 03.02.1997 she submitted an application requesting the respondent to accept her resignation and relieve her from duty w.e.f 03.03.1997. On 03.03.1997, she submitted application requesting the respondent to adjust all her outstanding loan amount from the final settlement to be paid to her after acceptance of her resignation with further request to treat the application as a three months' notice and RAVI KUMAR 2025.08.08 14:15:27 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019 to relieve her from service with effect from 31.05.1997. Her resignation was accepted vide order dated 28.04.1997 with direction to release her from service w.e.f. 02.06.1997 (AN). On 26.05.1997 she submitted an application requesting to treat her resignation as withdrawn. The said request was turned down and intimated to her vide letter dated 02.06.1997. Being aggrieved, she approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide OJC No. 15226 of 1998 praying to quash the order dated 28.04.1997 and 02.06.1997 by declaring the same as illegal and to direct the respondent to allow her to continue in the post of Senior Deputy Director (M&HS). After the SAIL became amenable to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the OJC No. 15226 of 1998 was transferred to this Bench, which was renumbered as TA 18 of 2011.
3. The said TA No. 18/2011 was finally adjudicated and disposed of by this Bench vide order dated 11.08.2014 with observation and direction as under:
"Law is well settled in the cases of Manoharlal (Dead) by LRs s Ugrasen (Deal) by LRs and others, (2010) 11 SCC 557 & Bharat Amratlal Kothari v Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Others, AIR 2010 SC 475 that court cannot grant a relief RAVI KUMAR 2025.08.08 14:15:27 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019 which has not been specifically prayed for by the parties and in fact no consequential relief has also been specifically prayed for by the Petitioner except to declare the letter dated 02.03.1997 in which her resignation was accepted during the notice period as illegal, to quash the order dated 28.04.1997 and 02.06.1997 and to direct the Opposite Party to allow her to continue in the post of Senior Deputy Director (M&HS) whereas, she has in the meantime reached the age of superannuation and that the petitioner was earning her livelihood out of private practice and contested the Assembly Election as an independent candidate. Hence, by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Balaram Gupta & Srikantha SM (supra) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the cases of Pabitra Mohan Nayak & Jaya Krishna Sabat (supra) we declare the letter dated 02.03.1997 in which her resignation was accepted during the notice period as illegal, and quash the order dated 28.04.1997 and 02.06.1997. But declined to direct the Opposite Party to allow her to continue as Senior Deputy Director (M&HS) as she has in the meantime attained the normal age of superannuation."
As per the records, the aforesaid order, having not been challenged by either of the parties before any higher forum, the same was set at rest. However, reiterating only the background of the matter, she had submitted an application on 04.02.2015 requesting the respondent to release her salary and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 02.06.1997 and, thereafter, approached this Bench in the present OA with the prayer stated above.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.08.08 14:15:27 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019
4. Respondent filed counter questioning the very maintainability of this OA for the same being hit by law of limitation, res judicata as also estoppels by invoking the provision under order 2 Rule 2 of CPC debarring from suing in respect of the portion of relief omitted or relinquished in earlier petition. They have also contested the case, on merit, by taking various stands.
5. Applicant (Late Dr. Mohanty) has filed rejoinder in which it has been stated that after the order of this Tribunal dated 11.08.2014 in TA No. 18/2011, applicant submitted representation on 04.02.2015 and, thereafter, filed this OA on 08.03.2016, which is within the limitation. This Bench quashed the impugned orders dated 28.04.1997 and 02.06.1997 in TA 18/2011 but declined to direct the respondent to allow her to continue as Senior Deputy Director (M&HS) as because she had attained the normal age of superannuation meanwhile. If the respondent was in any manner aggrieved by the said order, he should have knocked the door of the Hon'ble High Court and hence the said order reached its finality. The stand that Late Dr. Mohanty was earning her livelihood out of private practice and contested Assembly Election as an independent RAVI KUMAR 2025.08.08 14:15:27 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019 candidate is not supported by any evidence while filing counter before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 15226 of 1998, which was subsequently transferred to this Bench and renumbered as TA No. 18/2011. It is stated that if Late Dr. Mohanty contested the Assembly Election after 2010, which was subsequent to the date of her superannuation, there was no reason to deny her the salary for the interregnum period in question. Therefore, neither this case is hit by res judicata nor on the principle set out under order 2 Rule 2 CPC though, as per provision in the AT Act, the CPC has no application insofar as adjudication of dispute by this Bench. Accordingly, applicant has prayed for the grant of relief prayed for in this OA
6. Ld. Counsel for the parties emphasized their stand point taken in the pleadings, noted above, and after giving thorough consideration to the same, perused the records.
7. In so far as point of limitation as raised by the Respondents and disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant, notably, Late Dr. Mohanty filed the OJC before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the year 1998 challenging acceptance of her resignation and rejecting prayer for withdrawal dated 28.04.1997 and 02.06.1997 RAVI KUMAR 2025.08.08 14:15:27 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019 with prayer to quash those orders with direction to the respondent to allow her to continue in the post of Senior Deputy Director (M&HS) but without any such prayer for grant of financial and consequential service benefits. It may be noted that if someone is entitled to salary but the same was not paid, the matter would have been something different in so far as applying the limitation is concerned but it is not the case where the applicant was entitled to but was denied, rather her entitlement of salary for the period ought to have been decided at the first instance and, even after such decision it was not paid to her, point of limitation may not have been attracted. It is seen that the claim for making her entitled to salary though had arisen in the year 1998, she did not pray for the same and it was only on 04.02.2015 she preferred representation asking for the same and, thereafter, filed this OA on 08.03.2016. In view of the above, we find that there is considerable delay in approaching this Tribunal, which remained unexplained by the applicant, and, accordingly, this OA is hit by law of limitation.
8. In so far as the stand of the respondents that this OA is liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata is concerned, it is RAVI KUMAR 2025.08.08 14:15:27 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019 noteworthy that the doctrine of Res Judicata precludes the parties from re-litigating the same cause of action or any matter that was directly or indirectly in issue in subsequent proceedings. In the earlier case filed by Late Dr. Mohanty, this Bench while restraining from passing any order relating to grant of consequential benefits in absence of any such prayer had specifically noted that after her relieve on acceptance of resignation, she has been earning her livelihood out of private practice and contested the Assembly Election as an independent candidate which is also a prime factor for granting the salary as claimed by the applicant after quashing the impugned order. From the facts narrated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the issues involved in the instant case was substantially the issue in former case which had set at rest having attained finality and, hence, the OA is hit by the principle of res judicata.
9. In so far as grant salary from 02.06.1997 till attaining the age of retirement with 18% or 24% interest, as the case may be, as claimed by the Applicant in this OA, we may state that quashing of the orders restraining an employee from discharging normal duties, RAVI KUMAR 2025.08.08 14:15:27 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019 by way of punishment of dismissal/removal/resignation, the employee concerned is not automatically entitled to back wages is the law of the land - rather it is necessary for the employee concerned to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after any of the order as stated above keeping away him/her from service he/she was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earnings to maintain himself or his family. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law and this view is supported by the ratio of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another vs. S.C.Sharma, (2005) 2 SCC 363 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (dead) through legal representatives, (2018) 18 SCC 299. Whereas, nowhere in the present OA or even rejoinder it is the case that after acceptance of her resignation she was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earnings to maintain himself or his family. No evidence has also been filed by the applicant to the above effect. Rather, we find that the observation of this Bench in earlier case filed by Late Dr. Mohanty that she has been earning her livelihood out of private RAVI KUMAR 2025.08.08 14:15:27 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00025 of 2019 practice and contested the Assembly Election as an independent candidate remained untouched in absence of any challenge by the applicant before any higher forum or getting it reviewed as per Rules.
10. Thus, viewed the matter from any angle, we find that this OA has no legs to stand for the reasons discussed above and, thus this OA is bound to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.08.08 14:15:27
+05'30'