Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Bibhu Prasad Mishra; on 24 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20325 of 2014
W.P.(C) No.25911 of 2014
W.P.(C) No.7934 of 2017
W.P.(C) No.7942 of 2017
&
W.P.(C) No. 31996 OF 2025
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
W.P.(C) No.20325 OF 2014
1. State of Odisha, Commissioner-cum-
Secretary, Finance Department,
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda
2. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,
Odisha
3. Joint Commissioner, Commercial
Tax, Puri Range .... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Bibhu Prasad Mishra;
2. Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar;
3. Sri Ganeswar Nayak;
4. Mr.Jalal Mohammed;
5. Sri Bibhudhendra Baliarsingh Samant;
6. Sri Bijaya Ku. Sahoo;
7. Manoj Panda;
8. Ramesh Chandra Nayak;
Page 1 of 23
9. Bijayananda Hota;
10. Amiya Ranjan Pani;
11. Kailash Chandra Panigrahi;
12. Pravakar Rout;
13. Kishore Chandra Biswal;
14. Raghunath Sarangi;
15. Prakash Kumar Mishra;
16. Surendra Kumar Pradhan;
17. Satya Narayan Mohapatra;
18. Laxman Charan Tudu;
19. Pruthweeraj Pani;
20. Panchanan Behera;
21. Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra;
22. Rabindranath Nayak;
23. Sitakanta Mohanty;
24. Prasanta Kumar Behera;
25. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty;
26. Dhirendra Sundar Das;
27. Rashmi Ranjan Swain;
28. Akshya Kumar Nayak;
29. Kailash Chandra Mishra;
30. Manoranjan Bardhan;
31. Susanta Kumar Behera;
32. Purna Chandra Hembram;
33. Dhirendra Prasad Lenka;
34. Dewadutta Dhal;
35. Susanta Kumar Behera; and
36. Seelarani Sahoo .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA
Page 2 of 23
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Asok Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
With Mr.S.P.Patra, Advocate for OP.1
Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
M/s.D.Mohanty, S. Mohanty,
D. Varadwaj, Sumitra Mohanty &
Animesh Mohanty,
Advocates for intervenors
Mr.D.K. Mohapatra, A. Sahoo,
N. Nayak, Advocates for intervenors
M/s.A.N.Das, N. Sarkar,
E.A. Das & B.K. Jena,
Advocates for intervenors
M/s.S.R.Mohapatra, R. Nayak,
S. Mohanty, P.K. Behera, P.K. Mohanty,
D.S. Das, R.R. Swain, A.K. Nayak &
K.C. Mishra, Advocates for intervenors
Mr.Goutam Misra, Sr. Advocate
M/s.Mr.D.K.Patra, A.S. Behera,
A. Dash & J. Biswal
Advocates for Intervenors
Mr.A. Mohanta & R.R. Jaiswal
Advocate for Intervener
Mr.A. Sahoo, Advocate for Intervener
M/s.D.K.Mohapatra, J. Pattanayak &
N. Nayak, Advocates for Interveners
Page 3 of 23
M/s.S.Rath, B. Panigrahi.
A. Sathpathy, N. Jena &
S.P. Beheera, Advocates for Intervener
Mr.P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate
M/s.A.K. Rout, S.K. Behera,
S.K. Pattnaik, B.K. Dash,
A. Behera, P.Nayak & P.K. Sahoo,
Advocates for Intervener
Mrs.Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate
M/s.P.Mohanty, S. Gumansingh &
J. Mohanty,Advocates for Intervener
Mr.N.K.Mohanty & B.K.Mohanty
Advocates for Interveners
Mr.Shakti Sekhar,
Advocate for Intervener
M/s.A.Dash, A. Mishra &
S.Dash, Advocates for Intervenors.
W.P.(C) No. 25911 of 2014
1. State of Odisha, represented through its
Secretary to Government, Finance
Department, Bhubaneswar; and
2. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,
Odisha, Cuttack .... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Rasmi Rekha Tripathy;
2. Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Page 4 of 23
Bhubaneswar;
3. Special Secretary, OPSC, Cuttack;
4. Sri Bibhudhendra Baliarsingh Samant;
5. Sri Bijaya Ku. Sahoo;
6. Ramesh Chandra Nayak;
7. Bijayananda Hota;
8. Amiya Ranjan Pani;
9. Kailash Chandra Panigrahi;
10. Pravakar Rout;
11. Kishore Chandra Biswal;
12. Raghunath Sarangi;
13. Prakash Kumar Mishra;
14. Surendra Kumar Pradhan;
15. Satya Narayan Mohapatra;
16. Laxman Charan Tudu;
17. Pruthweeraj Pani;
18. Panchanan Behera;
19. Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra;
20. Rabindranath Nayak;
21. Sitakanta Mohanty;
22. Prasanta Kumar Behera;
23. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty;
24. Dhirendra Sundar Das;
25. Rashmi Ranjan Swain;
26. Akshya Kumar Nayak;
27. Kailash Chandra Mishra; and
Opp. Parties
28. Manoranjan Bardhan; ....
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA
Page 5 of 23
For Opp. Parties : Mr.S.P.Patra,
Mr.B.Routray, Sr. Advocate
With S.N.Biswal,
For intervenors.
M/s.A.N. Das, E.A. Das & B.K.Jena
For intervenors
Mr.Gautam Misra, Sr. Advocate
M/s.D.K. Patra, A.S. Behera,
A.Dash & J. Biswal
For intervenors
Mr.P.K.Rath, Sr. Advocate
M/s.R.N. Parija, A.K. Rout,
S.K. Pattnaik, A. Behera, P.K. Sahoo,
S.K. Behera, A.K. Behera &
B.K. Dash
For intervenors
W.P.(C) No.7934/2017
1. Kuanr Hembram .... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar;
2. State of Odisha, represented through
Principal Secretary, Government of
Odisha, Finance Department;
3. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,
Cuttack;
Page 6 of 23
4. Special Secretary, OPSC, Cuttack;
and .... Opp. Parties
5. Rasmi Rekha Tripathy.
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr.Gautam Misra, Sr. Advocate
M/s.D.K. Patra, A, Dash, J.Biswal &
J.R.Deo, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr.U.C. Behura, AGA for O.Ps.1 to 4
W.P.(C) No.7942/2017
1. Kuanr Hembram .... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar;
2. State of Odisha, represented through
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government
of Odisha, Finance Department,
Bhubaneswar
3. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,
Odisha, Cuttack;
4. Joint Commissioner, Commercial
Tax, Puri Range, Puri; and
.... Opp. Parties
5. Bibhu Prasad Mishra
Page 7 of 23
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr.Gautam Misra, Sr. Advocate
M/s.D.K. Patra, A, Dash, J.Biswal &
J.R.Deo, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr.U.C. Behura, AGA for O.Ps.1 to 4
W.P.(C) No.31996/2025
1. Bijay Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through
Principal Secretary to Government of
Odisha; Finance Department,
Bhubaneswar
2. Odisha Public Service Commissioner,
represented though its Chairman;
and
3. Smt. Rashmi Rekha Tripathy .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
M/s.S. Routray, S.Sekhar, S. Swain,
J.Biswal, Charvi & S.P. Dash, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr.U.C. Behura, AGA for O.P.1
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Page 8 of 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing: 19.02.2026 : Date of judgment : 24.02.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
The State & private parties are invoking the writ jurisdiction
of this Court for assailing two orders dated 21.01.2014 & 13.05.2014
entered by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.383 of
2013 & O.A. No.677 of 2013. By these orders, the following relief
has been granted to the answering Opposite Parties, i.e. Bibhu
Prasad Mishra & Rasmi Rekha Tripathy, as under:
‚In O.A. No.383/2013:
In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to
convene a review DPC for consideration of the case of the applicant if
he comes within the zone of consideration in respect of the remaining
58 vacancies along with other similarly situated persons belonging to
Orissa Subordinate Finance Service cadre (ACTO) as per their ratio
for their promotion to the cadre of Orissa Taxation & Accounts
Service, within a period of two months from the date of
communication of this order and if the decision of the DPC goes in
favour of the applicant, give him promotion from the date the
candidates who were promoted as per the recommendation of the DPC
dated 22.12.2012.
However, it need not be said that since the applicant is not
working in the promotional post, even though is seniority will be
counted along with others who were promoted as per recommendation
of the DPC dated 22.12.2012, he shall no tbe entitled to any financial
benefit for that period…‛
In O.A. No.677/2013:
Page 9 of 23
In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to
convene a review DPC for consideration of the case of the applicant if
he comes within the zone of consideration in respect of the remaining
58 vacancies along with other similarly situated persons belonging to
Orissa Subordinate Finance Service cadre (ACTO) as per their ratio
for their promotion to the cadre of Orissa Taxation & Accounts
Service, within a period of two months from the date of
communication of this order and if the decision of the DPC goes in
favour of the applicant, ante date for promotion from the date the
candidates who were promoted as per the recommendation of the DPC
dated 22.12.2012.
However, it need not be said that since the applicant had worked
in the promotional post till her joining in promotion post as per
notification dated 07.02.2014, even though her seniority will be
counted along with others who were promoted as per recommendation
of the DPC dated 22.12.2012, she shall not be entitled to any financial
benefit for that period, i.e., the period she had not worked in promotion
post….‛
The State & its functionaries were directed to convene a
review DPC for consideration of their candidature if they fell
within the zone of consideration in respect of the remaining 58
vacancies along with other similarly circumstanced (belonging to
Orissa Subordinate Finance Service cadre) as ACTO in terms of
their ratio for promotion in Orissa Taxation & Accounts Service.
They were also directed contingently to accord retrospective dates
of promotion as has been granted to others pursuant to DPC
recommendation dated 22.12.2012. This exercise has to be
accomplished within two months. However, no financial benefit
Page 10 of 23
would be accorded for the retrospective promotion, although they
will earn seniority for the said period.
2. FOUNDATIONAL FACT MATRIX OF THESE CASES:
2.1. The Orissa Accounts and Taxation Services Rules, 2011 came
to be promulgated by the State Government under the Proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India vide notification dated
22.12.2011. Rule 4(b) provides for appointment to the cadre in
question in the ratio of 50% by direct recruitment, 30% by
promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 20% by
promotion on the basis of selection, i.e., merit-cum-seniority. The
next higher cadre is to the Orissa Taxation & Accounts Service.
Rule 10(1) provides for the DPC Meeting once in a year preferably
in the month of January for preparing list of suitable officers for
promotion keeping in view existing and anticipated vacancies for
the year.
2.2. Originally, the promotional cadre comprised of 345 posts.
Thereafter, the cadre strength was enhanced to 563 posts vide
decision of the Cabinet drawn in the 14th Meeting held on
17.05.2011. Further enhancement happened to 753 vide Cabinet
decision dated 18.06.2012. The DPC met on 22.12.2012 for
Page 11 of 23
considering the cases of promotion to OT & AS from Orissa
Subordinate Finance Service Cadre. This was admittedly under the
segment of 30%. However, the requisition in the meanwhile was
issued calling for the service particulars on 10.01.2012, i.e. much
prior to enhancement of the cadre strength to 753. The DPC
recommended the candidates keeping in view the earlier cadre
strength of 563, although in its proceedings it had referred to such
enhancement.
2.3. The answering Opposite Parties though considered for
promotion, were denied that benefit for want of vacancies in that
year, although they came to be promoted on the recommendations
of DPC, for the subsequent year. It is their specific case that had
the DPC treated the enhanced cadre strength of 753, as is
imperative under the extant Rules, they too would have got
promotion on the date other candidates were promoted. The
Tribunal accepted this contention and has handed the impugned
orders, repelling the contention of petitioners herein that the DPC
proceedings began when requisition was issued to the
departmental heads on 10.01.2012 prescribing 15.02.2012 as the last
date for the submission of credentials by the promotion aspirants.
Page 12 of 23
After the filing of these petitions, two sets of employees got
impleaded as additional Opposite Parties, one opposing the
petitions and the other sailing with.
3. Ld. AGA Mr. Behura appeared for the official Petitioners.
Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Asok Mohanty represented the answering OPs,
who were the Applicants before the Tribunal. Ld. Sr. Adv. Pami
Rath represented the set of impleaded OPs who supported the case
of these Applicants. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Goutam Mishra & Mr.
Budhadeb Routray appeared for the other set of impleaded OPs
supporting the case of State and the private Petitioners.
3.1. Mr. Behura, Mr. Mishra & Mr. Routray in substance
submitted that: no relief could be granted to the Applicants
because of nonjoinder of necessary parties; the Tribunal cannot be
faltered for treating only 563 vacancies, keeping the new ones
apart; the DPC proceedings commenced not when it met on
22.12.2012 but much before that, i.e., 10.01.2012 when requisition
was issued for furnishing the credentials within the cutoff date,
i.e., 15.02.2012. In support of this, they pressed into service a set of
Rules and relied upon a bunch of Rulings.
Page 13 of 23
3.2. Mr. Mohanty & Ms. Rath per contra resisted the petitions
contending that: in the text & context of the provisions of Rule 10
of 2011 Rules, it was imperative for the Tribunal to rope in the
enhanced cadre strength, i.e., 753 posts eventually yielding
additional 168 vacancies without confining to 563, since it had met
on 22.12.2012 and cadre was swelled to 753 long before that, i.e.,
18.06.2012; this 753 has to be treated as existing vacancy position;
the promotion process begins only on the 1st Meeting of the DPC,
i.e., 22.12.2012, requisition for credentials of the aspirants not
having been internalized in Rule 10; the set of impleaded OPs who
support the petitioners has no locus standii since they fall within
the selection segment of 30%; even otherwise, they were not
recommended by the Dec. 2012 DPC, although they were
promoted on the recommendation of 2013 DPC; the review DPC
became imperative also because of earlier round of litigation in OA
No.1983 of 2012 that was disposed off on 20.12.2012, directing
consideration for promotion to enhanced cadre strength of 753; the
impugned orders of the Tribunal are consistent with the cannons
of service jurisprudence and that they have brought about a just
result, regardless of arguable deficiencies. They too pressed into
Page 14 of 23
service the extant Rules and relied upon certain Rulings in support
of their contentions.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers and also having adverted to relevant
of the Rules & Rulings cited before us, we decline indulgence in
the matter for the following reasons:
4.1. The essential facts are not in dispute and they are: The earlier
cadre strength was 345; the 1st enhancement happened to 563 by
virtue of Cabinet decision dated 17.05.2011 and the 2nd
enhancement to 753 was by another such decision dated
18.06.2012; the Tribunal in OA No.1983 of 2012 disposed off on
20.12.2012 had directed holding of DPC only after the credentials
of Applicant therein reach the file of DPC. Therefore, the 1st
submission of the Petitioners that the cutoff date i.e. 15.02.2012 for
submitting the requisites pursuant to requisition dated 10.01.2012
would pale into insignificance. As its concomitant fall out, it needs
to be held that the proceedings for promotion did not commence
when the requisition was made.
4.2. There is another reason for taking the above view: The idea
of requisition as the triggering point of DPC proceedings is not
Page 15 of 23
internalized in the text & context of Rule 10(1) of 2011 Rules whichreads as under:
‚10. Procedure for Selection by the Board
(1) The Board shall meet at least once in a year preferably in the month
of January to prepare a list of officers suitable for appointment to the
next higher grade taking into account the existing vacancies and the
anticipated vacancies for the year.‛The term ‘Existing Vacancies’ in the light of the above text has to be
construed as those vacancies that existed when the DPC held its
maiden meeting on 22.12.2012. The proceeding sheets of the DPC
mention the enhanced cadre strength of 753, which would
unmistakably yielded 168 additional vacancies, as rightly
contended by Mr. Mohanty & Ms. Rath. It falls foul of the
language, intent & policy content of the above Rule, if contention of
Mr. Behura, Mr. Mishra & Mr. Routray is accepted to the effect that
the vacancy position as on the date of issuing the requisition alone
has to be kept in view. If that was the intent of the Rule Maker, the
text of the Rule would have been much different than what it does
now obtain.
4.3. There is yet another reason supportive of the version of
advocates appearing for the OPs who resist the petitions: The Rule
Maker in his wisdom has employed two expressions, viz., ‘existing
Page 16 of 23
vacancies’ and ‘anticipated vacancies’. The object of this is as clear
as Gangetic Waters, that is not only the existing vacancies the DPC
has to ascertain when it meets but also those vacancies that are
likely to arise between first day of January and last day of
December of the said year. The word ‘anticipate’ means ‘to expect
something, or, to see what might happen in the future and take action to
prepare for it, or, to think with pleasure and excitement about something
that is going to happen, or, to do something before it can be done by
somebody else’ says the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. This
common parlance meaning has to be accepted, there being nothing
repugnant suggested in the text of Rule. We are aware that, the
law is not the slave of dictionary. An argument in variance would
offend the object of the Cabinet enhancing the cadre strength to
753 which was within the knowledge of DPC when it met.
4.4. AS TO NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES:
The vehement submission of Mr. Mishra & Mr. Routray that no
relief could have been granted to the Applicants in the absence of
arraying the persons who were likely to be affected by the
Tribunal’s order, at a first blush sounds attractive; however, a
deeper examination shows its hollowness:
Page 17 of 23
i) Firstly, the freshly arrayed OPs do not belong to 30% segment,
since admittedly they were in the 20% segment of selection. They
were not the persons who were recommended by the DPC in its
meeting held on 22.12.2012.
ii) Secondly, these persons were promoted on the DPC
recommendation dated 04.12.2013, i.e., much after the Applicants
had filed OAs before the Tribunal. Ordinarily, rights of the
litigants have to be adjudged as they obtained when the lis was
formally instituted vide Rameshwar v. Jot Ram, AIR 1976 SC 49.
iii) Thirdly, it is no body’s case that the names of DPC
recommendees were made known to the Applicants.
iv) Fourthly, the State had not taken the plea of non-joinder of
parties before the Tribunal although it is taken up before us, as an
afterthought, with no explanation as to why that was not taken up
in the OA.
Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Routray’s reliance on Apex Court decision in
Vinod Prasad Raturi v. UOI, (2021) 16 SCC 103 holding that even
DPC recommendees are necessary parties, would not come to the
rescue of his clients. We repeat that admittedly his clients were
Page 18 of 23
recommended by December 2013 DPC and not the DPC of
22.12.2012. It hardly needs to be stated that, a decision is an
authority for the proposition that it actually lays down in a specific
fact matrix, and not for all that which logically follows from what
has been so laid down, said Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem,
[1901] AC 495 (HL).
4.5. The vehement submission of Mr. Behura that the DPC
belatedly met on 22.12.2012 because of Tribunal’s intervention in
OA No.1079(C) of 2012, and had there been no interim order on
25.04.2012, it would have accomplished the task of making
recommendations much before the cadre enhancement to 753 that
happened on 18.06.2012, is legally untenable and factually
incorrect. The Tribunal did not interdict DPC proceedings at all; it
had only injuncted from effecting promotions on the basis of
recommendations to be made by the DPC, then. Ld. Sr. Adv. Ms.
Pami Rath is right in telling us that the text of Rule 10(1) leaves no
discretion with the DPC than to make recommendation for all the
vacancies that existed when it first met, and not when the
requisition was made calling for the credentials of aspirants from
the feeder cadre. The argument structured on ifs & buts are only
Page 19 of 23
hypothetical and therefore, do not merit acceptance. Mexican
sports commentator Mr. Don Meredith (1938-2010) to pre-empt the
avoidable gossip on the football sports had humorously said: ‘If ifs
and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas’.
4.6. AS TO THE CONTENTION THAT TRIBUNAL’S ORDER IS
A JUDGMENT IN REM:
4.6.1. The submission that the impugned judgment operates
in rem vide K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3277, does
not impress. Let us see what the Apex Court observed there:
‚Often in service matters the judgments rendered either by the
Tribunal or by the Court also affect other persons, who are not parties
to the cases. It may help a class of employees and at the same time
adversely affect another class of employees. In such circumstances the
judgments of the courts or the tribunals may not be strictly judgments
in personam affecting only to the parties to the cases, they would be
judgments in rem…‛The above observations have to be construed in the sense that, all
similarly circumstanced employees, subject to just exceptions,
need not be driven to litigation process, State being a
constitutionally ordained model employer. Relief granted to one
ordinarily has to be extended to others that are similarly
circumstanced, unless there are some repugnant factors. This view
Page 20 of 23
gains support from State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC747 wherein it is said:
‚Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time
postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated
similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would
not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated
differently…‛4.6.2. It has long been established by sages of law that the
judgments in rem are those which have been rendered only in four
conventional jurisdictions:
i) Sir John Woodroffe & Syed Amir Ali1 write as under:
‚…Bower defines a judgment in rem as one which “declares, defines or
otherwise determines the status of a person, or of a thing; that us to
say, the jural relation of the person or thing to the world generally”….
A judgment in rem like judgments passed in probate, insolvency,
matrimonial or guardianship or other similar proceedings, is
admissible in all cases whether such judgments are inter parte or not.
“Judgment in rem” means an adjudication pronounced upon the
status of a person or thing by a competent Court to the world
generally…‛
ii) Halsbury’s Laws of England 2009, 5th Edition, Para 1161 reads as
under:
‚1161. Examples of judgments in rem. The following are examples
of judgments in rem: the judgment of a prize court condemning a
vessel as prize; the judgment of an Admiralty court establishing a lien,
or condemning a vessel in a claim (for example for the supply of. Law of Evidence, 15th Edition.
1
Page 21 of 23
goods) … the judgment of a probate court establishing a will or
creating the status of administrators; the judgment of a divorce court
of competent jurisdiction dissolving or establishing a marriage, or
declaring the nullity of a marriage or affirming its existence; the
judgment on a parliamentary election petition; a conviction for non-
repair of a highway; a determination of justices that a street was a
highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, establishing the status
of the highway and the liability to repair; a determination that a path
was subject to a public right of way; an order for revocation of a
patent; a sentence or order of expulsion or rustication from a college or
deprivation of a living. Condemnations in the old Court of Exchequer
for breach of revenue laws and the order of justices for the removal of a
poor person, establishing both his status and the place of his
settlement, were also examples of judgments in rem. Upon the same
principles it would seem that a bankruptcy order or an order of
discharge in bankruptcy, and an order for the dissolution of a
company or an order declaring such a dissolution void, are in the
nature of judgments in rem.‛
iii) To the four conventional jurisdictions, we can add one more
with no risk of contradiction. That is where Constitutional Courts
quash an instrument of law (as comprehensively mentioned in
Article 13(3) of the Constitution), such judgments also operate in
rem, in the sense that the quashment is not confined to parties to
the litigation. Law does not create reality, but reality of life may
create law.
That being the position, those employees who had not approached
the Tribunal in time for ventilating their grievance by filing their
Page 22 of 23
own OAs cannot seek benefit of the OAT Judgment. One cannot
bathe in the bath waters of other, to put it metaphorically.
In the above circumstances, these Petitions, being
devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed, and
accordingly they are, costs having been made easy.
The impugned orders of the Tribunal shall be given
effect to within an outer limit of three months, if already
not implemented.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all
concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 24th day of February, 2026/Prasant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Page 23 of 23
Date: 26-Feb-2026 12:19:15
