Orissa High Court
Sarbeswar Das vs Union Of India & Ors. .... Opp. Parties on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Biswajit Mohanty, Biswanath Rath
AFR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.37432 of 2021
Sarbeswar Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India & Ors. .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P.K. Parhi,
Assistant Solicitor General of India
assisted by Mr. J. Nayak,
Central Government Counsel for O.P.1
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
Order No. 06.12.2021
01. In this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.452 of 2021 with further prayer to declare that the prayer made by the petitioner in the O.A. contains a single relief. He has also prayed to pass any other further order as would be deemed fit and proper.
According to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by filing the above noted Original Application with the following reliefs :
"(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to give a direction to the respondents particularly respondent No.4, to consider the grievances of the applicant enumerated in the representation dated 22.05.2021 made by the applicant vide ANNEXURE-A/1 (Series) and dispose of the same within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may also be pleased to pass any other further order / orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
// 2 // Thus according to Mr. Mohanty, a single prayer was made by the Petitioner before the learned Tribunal i.e. for a direction to the Respondent No.4, who according to him is the Opposite Party No.3 here, to dispose of his representation. But the Tribunal by referring to various grievances of the Petitioner made in the representation wrongly took a view that the Petitioner is praying for multiple reliefs in the O.A. and accordingly dismissed the same referring to Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the Director of Postal Services, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) be directed to take a decision on his representation under Annexure-1, which was filed before the learned Tribunal as Annexure-A/1(series), within a specified time period.
Mr. Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel while defending the impugned order under Annexure-3 submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed no error, as it has passed impugned order relying upon Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the records.
Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, as quoted in the impugned order, reads as follows:
"Plural remedies.- An application shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more reliefs provided that they are consequential to one another."
A reading of the said Rule makes it clear that so far as the learned Tribunal is concerned, an aggrieved party may file an application, which shall be based on a single cause of action, but he can seek one or more reliefs provided that those are consequential to one another. On perusal of the quoted portion of the prayer made before the learned Tribunal, it appears that Page 2 of 4 // 3 // the cause of action for filing of the Original Application was, the grievance of the Petitioner relating to non-disposal of his representation dtd.22.05.2021. Accordingly, the Petitioner simply prayed for a direction to the Director of Postal Services, HQ Region-the present Opposite Party No.3 to dispose of his representation dated 22.05.2021 under Annexure-A/1 (series) therein filed herein as Annexure-1. However learned Tribunal perused the representation and since in the representation several reliefs have been prayed, it came to the conclusion that there existed multiple prayers. In our opinion, the approach of the learned Tribunal is not correct, as factually in the Original Application there were no multiple prayers. The fact that multiple grievances raised in the representation are of no consequence as Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 does not prohibit an employee from praying for multiple reliefs in his / her representation. Thus the learned Tribunal has committed an error by treating the various reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner in his representation to be the reliefs prayed in the O.A. It is reiterated that there exists no legal embargo that in a representation multiple reliefs cannot be prayed for. The Tribunal has read into Rule 10, reliefs prayed by the Petitioner in the representation and failed to distinguish between the reliefs prayed in the representation and reliefs prayed in O.A. In such background we have no hesitation to set aside the order of the learned Tribunal dated 15.11.2021 under Annexure-3 and accordingly, we do so. Though ordinarily while setting aside Annexure-3, we would have remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal, however considering the nature of prayer made before the Tribunal, we do not think, any purpose would be served in remanding the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court directs the Director of Postal Services, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) to take a decision on the representation dated 22.05.2021 of Petitioner under Annxure-1, which was sent by way of Registered Post on Page 3 of 4 // 4 // 24.05.2021, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner.
With the above order the writ petition is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(Biswajit Mohanty) Judge (Biswanath Rath) Judge M.K. Rout Page 4 of 4