IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XXI Rule 3(1)(A)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

(Arising out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.11.2023
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Orissa at Cuttack in
W.A. No. 2528 of 2023).
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
IN THE MATTER OF:
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology & Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
Rukeiya Begum & Ors. …Respondents

WITH

I.A. NO. ________ OF 2024

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

PAPER – BOOK

{FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE}

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS : NAVEEN KUMAR

 SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner, a fully funded State University, is filing the present

Special Leave Petition against the Order dated 24.11.2023 (hereinafter

referred to as “Impugned Order”) passed by the Hon’ble High Court

of Orissa in the Writ Appeal bearing No. 2528 of 2023. It is submitted

that the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said writ appeal solely on

the ground that the writ appeal suffers from delay and laches. While

dismissing the Writ Appeal, the High Court has relied on its earlier

Order dated 16.07.2021 (State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das

(W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021), while further stating that the Special

Leave Petition (S.L.P.(C) Diary No. 9259 of 2023) against the said

Order has been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court vide Order dated

05.04.2023.

That while passing the Impugned Order, the Division Bench has not

dealt with the present matter on merit and has instead dismissed the

matter solely relying on Surama Manjari Das (supra). The Hon’ble

Division Bench has passed the Impugned Order without even

appreciating that there is a material difference between the aforesaid

matter and the present case. It is submitted that in the Order dated

16.07.2021 in Surama Manjari Das (supra), it has specifically been

observed by the Hon’ble High Court that “there is neither an

application for condonation of delay nor any explanation for such

delay in filing the writ petition”. However, in the present case, the

Petitioners have vide I.A. No. 7416 of 2023 have shown “sufficient

cause” to condone the delay in filing the writ appeal. It is therefore

submitted that the impugned order, which has been passed while

mechanically referring to the judgment in case of Surama Manjari

Das (supra), is wholly unsustainable.

That the Hon’ble High Court while passing the Impugned Order ought

to have considered the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of

State of Odisha & Ors v Nikunja Kishore Panigrahi, SLP (C) No.

11443 of 2023. In the aforesaid case, this Hon’ble Court was pleased

to condone the delay of one and a half years in the filing of a writ

appeal by the State of Odisha by taking into account the larger

ramifications and financial liability that was likely to accrue on the

State Exchequer by virtue of the dismissal of the writ appeal by the

Hon’ble High Court on the sole ground of delay and laches, relying on

the judgment of Surama Manjari Das (supra).

While passing the Impugned Order, the Hon’ble High Court has failed

to appreciate the settled principle of law wherein this Hon’ble Court

has consistently held that in the case of government authorities, the

court must adopt a more liberal approach while considering an

application for condonation of delay. It is a well-known fact that in

Government cases, the process of decision-making involves multiple

layers of considerations, consultations and deliberations by a large

number of officials. In such view of the matter, the government cannot

be dealt like a private person so far as consideration for an application

for condonation of delay is concerned.

That the Petitioners vide the Writ Appeal bearing No. 2528 of 2023

had challenged the Order dated 01.08.2023 passed in W.P. (C) No.

40207 of 2021 that was disposed of solely by observing that the case

has already been decided vide Judgment dated 19.05.2023 so passed in

W.P. (C) No. 40091 of 2021 and other batch matters. It is submitted

that in the Judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P. (C) No. 40091

of 2021, the Hon'ble Single Judge had directed the Petitioners to pay

the scale of pay of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- plus AGP of Rs. 6,000/- to the

Petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016. It is submitted that as a consequence of

such direction, the Order passed by the Petitioners therein was

quashed. The Petitioners were further directed to calculate and

sanction the differential arrear taking into consideration the pay scale

prescribed under the Advertisement and Office Order and pay the

arrear differential amount.

The Hon’ble High Court, while dismissing the Writ Appeal, has not at

all dealt with the explanation provided by the Petitioner in its

application seeking condonation of delay, and therefore, the impugned

order is a non speaking order and has been passed without application

of mind.

The Respondent No.1 had approached the Hon’ble High Court of

Orissa by filing a Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 40207 of 2021

challenging the Order dated 10.11.2021 in fixing the pay of the

Respondent No. 1 in 7th CPC taking into account the corresponding

scale of pay of Rs. 15,600-38,100/- plus A.G.P. Rs. 5,400/- instead of

G.P. Rs. 6,000/-.

The brief facts leading to filing of the present Special Leave to Appeal

are outlined as follows:

i. That an advertisement dated 16.08.2014 was

published by the Petitioners inviting applications from

eligible candidates for recruitment to vacant posts in

different disciplines in Krishi Vigyan Kendras (hereinafter

referred to as “KVKs”) functioning under OUAT including

the post of Subject Matter Specialist in the Scale of Pay of

Rs.15,600-39,100/- plus AG.P. of Rs.6,000/- with usual DA

and other allowances as applicable under OUAT Rules. It

was made clear under the terms and conditions of the

advertisement that:

(1) The KVK employees are contractual project

staff and allowed regular scale of pay with

annual increments and other benefits as per

ICAR Guidelines till 100% funding of ICAR

continues.

(2) The KVK employees are not entitled to terminal

benefits and their service is coterminous with

the Central project i.e. till the period 100%

funds are made available by ICAR.

(3) The State Government and OUAT will not

shoulder any kind of liability pertaining to

KVK.

ii. That the Respondent No. 1 applied for the said post of

Subject Matter Specialist and on recommendation by the

Standing Selection Committee, vide Office Order dated

23.05.2015, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a

Subject Matter Specialist (hereinafter referred to as “SMS”)

(later re-designated as Scientist) and posted at KVK,

Baragarh.
iii. That when the question of implementation of the

recommendation of the 7th CPC arose, the OUAT revised

the scale of pay of all KVK employees in consonance with

the recommendation of the 7th CPC. However, the pay of the

Respondent No. 1 was not revised in terms of the

recommendation of the 7th CPC.

iv. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 submitted a

representation to the Petitioner on 09.07.2021 requesting the

University to fix his scale of pay as per recommendation of

the 7th CPC and release his salary as per such

recommendation.

v. That the Respondent No. 1 thereafter approached the

Hon’ble High Court of Orissa by filing W.P. (C) No. 23041

of 2021 for grant of revised scale of pay in terms of

recommendation of the 7th CPC. The Hon’ble High Court of

Orissa by its Order dated 17.08.2021 disposed of the said

writ petition directing the Petitioners to look into the matter

and pass appropriate order on the representation of the

Respondent No. 1 by taking into consideration the grounds

stated by the Respondent No. 1 in his representation within a

period of two months.

vi. That the Petitioners herein, relying upon the letters

and circulars of the ICAR, by Order dated 10.11.2021

rejected the representation of the Respondent No. 1 by fixing

his pay as per the 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016 taking into

account the corresponding scale of pay of Rs. 15,600-

39,100/- + G.P. Rs. 5400/- instead of Rs. 6000/-.

vii. That the Hon’ble High Court vide its Order dated

01.08.2023 disposed of the writ petition bearing W.P. (C)

No. 40207 of 2021 in light of the common judgement dated

19.05.2023 so passed in W.P. (C) No. 40091 of 2021. In the

common judgment, the similarly placed writ petitions were

allowed solely on the basis that the Petitioners erroneously

advised the A.G.P. of Rs. 6000/- for the post of SMS in

terms of the advertisement.

viii. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 01.08.2023

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in light of the

common judgement dated 19.05.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 40091

of 2021, the Petitioners preferred a Writ Appeal bearing

W.A. No. 2528 of 2023.

ix. That the Ld. Division Bench of the Hon’ble High

Court of Orissa dismissed the Writ Appeal bearing No. 2528

of 2023 on the ground that the writ appeal suffers from delay
 and laches. It was erroneously observed in the Impugned

Order that the order impugned in the writ appeal was passed

on 19.05.2023 and the writ appeal has been filed on

01.10.2023 and that sufficient cause has not been shown to

condone the delay of 110 days in preferring the writ appeal.

However, it is pertinent to submit that the order Impugned in

the writ appeal was passed on 01.08.2023 and not

19.05.2023.

x. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the

judgment/order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of

State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No.

15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), the SLP against

which has been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court, vide order

dated 05.04.2023 in S.L.P.(C) Diary No. 9259 of 2023, the

writ appeal of the present Petitioner was dismissed by the

Hon’ble High Court without considering even the prima

facie merit of the present case.

It is also pertinent to submit that in case the relief sought by the present

Respondent No. 1 is granted, this would result in huge financial

implication on the Petitioner University as well as the State Govt.

considering like claims from a large number of employees. It is

submitted that the entire project of scheme of KVKs is 100% funded

by the ICAR and having referred to the letter issued by the ICAR dated

29.03.2011, 09.03.2021, 01.10.2021 and 16.09.2021, the Learned

Single Judge has erred by fixing the liability on the Petitioners by way

of the Impugned Order, without appreciating the peculiar nature of the

employment of the Respondent No. 1, financial implication and

control regulation and funding related issues emanating from ICAR

Guidelines.

That the Division Bench has failed to consider the whole effect of the

judgment before rejecting the writ appeal solely on the technical

ground of delay. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts,

circumstances and submissions, the Petitioner is constrained to

challenge the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Orissa in Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No. 2528 of 2023.

Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

LIST OF DATES
S.N. DATE PARTICULARS OF EVENTS

1 29.03.2011 That from the inception of KVK, the pay scale for

SMS was Rs. 15,600-39,100/- plus A.G.P. of Rs.

6000/-. However, the ICAR vide its Letter dated

29.03.2011 issued a guideline where the pay scale

was prescribed as Rs. 15,600-39,100/- plus A.G.P.

of Rs. 5400/-.

It is pertinent to submit that the Petitioners had not

received the Letter dated 29.03.2011 and issued the

later advertisement dated 16.08.2014 without the

knowledge of the same. A True Copy of the Letter

dated 29.03.2011 is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE- 1 [PAGE NO. __ TO __].

2 16.08.2014 An advertisement dated 16.08.2014 was published

by the Petitioner in unintentional ignorance of the

Letter dated 29.03.2011, inviting applications from

eligible candidates for recruitment to vacant posts

in different disciplines in KVKs functioning under

OUAT including the post of SMS in Plant Science.

The Scale of Pay of Rs.15,600- 39,100/- plus

A.G.P. of Rs. 6,000/- with usual DA and other

 allowances was prescribed in the advertisement.

However, it was made clear under the terms and

conditions that:

(1) The KVK employees are contractual project

staff and allowed regular scale of pay with annual

increments and other benefits as per ICAR

Guidelines till 100% funding of ICAR continues.

(2) The KVK employees are not entitled to terminal

benefits and their service is coterminous with the

Central project i.e. till the period 100% funds are

made available by ICAR.

(3) The State Government and OUAT will not

shoulder any kind of liability pertaining to KVK.

A True Copy of the advertisement dated

16.08.2014 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE- 2 [PAGE NO. __ TO __].

3 27.08.2014 That the service conditions of contractual staff in

KVKs under OUAT has been clarified as per

OUAT Notification bearing No. 19832/UAT dated

27.08.2014 as follows:

1) The KVK employees are contractual project

staff and allowed regular scale of pay with annual

 increments and other benefits as per the ICAR

guidelines, till funding of ICAR continues.

(2) The KVK employees are not entitled to terminal

benefits and their service is co- terminus with the

contractual project i.e. till the period 100% funds

are made available by ICAR.

(3) The State Government and OUAT will not

shoulder any kind of liability pertaining to KVKs.

(4) The transfer of KVK employees will be within

the KVKs only.

A True Copy of the Notification bearing No.

19832/UAT dated 27.08.2014 is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE- 3 [PAGE NO. __

TO __].

4 23.05.2015 That the Respondent No. 1 applied for the said post

of SMS and on recommendation by the Standing

Selection Committee, vide Office Order dated

23.05.2015, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed

as a SMS (later re-designated as Scientist) and

posted at KVK, Baragarh. It is pertinent to submit

that the terms and conditions of the Office Order

dated 23.05.2015 states as follows:

(1) The KVK employees are contractual

 project staff and allowed regular scale of pay

with annual increments and other benefits as

per ICAR Guidelines till 100% funding of

ICAR continues.

(2) The KVK employees are not entitled to

terminal benefits and their service is

coterminous with the Central project i.e. till

the period 100% funds are made available

by ICAR.

A True Copy of the Office Order dated 23.05.2015

is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-

4 [PAGE NO. __ TO __].

5 04.09.2017 That during the time of appointment of the

Respondent No. 1 in the year 2015, the Letter of

ICAR for appointment of KVK Scientist in the

scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- plus G.P.

Rs.5,400/- from the date of 29.03.2011 was not

received by the Petitioners. Therefore, selection

and posting of Scientists in KVKs continued in the

scale of pay as per the existing provision of Rules.

However, after receipt of a clear guidelines from

the ICAR vide Letter dated 04.09.2017, the

 recruitment to the post of SMS (Scientist) has been

made in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/-

plus G.P. Rs. 5,400/- (pre-revised scale). A True

Copy of the Letter dated 04.09.2017 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- 5 [PAGE

NO. __ TO __].

6 09.03.2021 That the Under Secretary (IE), ICAR wrote a

Letter dated 09.03.2021 to the Director, ICAR-

ATARI regarding the implementation of 7th CPC

pay scale to the employees working at the KVKs

which are not administered by ICAR but for which

ICAR has the liability for payment of salary. It is

pertinent to submit that the approved pay band and

Grade Pay in 6th CPC for employees recruited on or

after 29.03.2011 of SMS was Rs. 15,600-39,100/-

plus G.P. of Rs. 5400/-. A True Copy of the Letter

dated 09.03.2021 is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE- 6 [PAGE NO. __ TO __].

7 28.05.2021 That the Registrar, OUAT received a Letter dated

28.05.2021 from the Directorate of Extension

Education, OUAT with which a copy of the ICAR

Letter dated 29.03.2011 was received for taking

 further necessary action. A True Copy of the Letter

dated 28.05.2021 is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE- 7 [PAGE NO. __ TO __].

8 09.07.2021 The discrepancies relating to structure of pay of the

Respondent No. 1 came to light while file was

processed for revision into 7th CPC for which his

pay was not revised w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The

Respondent’s scale of pay of Rs.15,600- 39,100/-

plus G.P. Rs.6,000/- was not admissible in terms of

the principles of ICAR communicated vide Letter

dated 09.03.2011.

Accordingly, due to non-fixation of 7th CPC, the

Respondent No. 1 submitted a representation to the

Petitioner on 09.07.2021 requesting the University

to fix his scale of pay as per recommendation of

the 7th CPC and release his salary as per such

recommendation.

9 05.08.2021 That the Respondent No. 1 thereafter approached

the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa by filing a Writ

Petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 23041 of 2021 for

grant of revised scale of pay in terms of

 recommendation of the 7th CPC.

10 17.08.2021 The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide its Order

dated 17.08.2021 disposed of the said writ petition

bearing W.P. (C) No. 23041 of 2021 directing the

Petitioners therein to look into the matter and pass

appropriate order on the representation of the

Respondent No. 1 by taking into consideration the

grounds stated by the Respondent No. 1 in his

representation within a period of two months. A

True Copy of the Order dated 17.08.2021 passed in

Writ Petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 23041 of 2021

is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-

8 [PAGE NO. __ TO __].

11 10.11.2021 That the Petitioners herein, relying upon the letters

and circulars of the ICAR, by Order dated

10.11.2021 rejected the representation of the

Respondent No. 1 by fixing his pay as per 7th CPC

w.e.f. 01.01.2016 taking into account the

corresponding scale of pay of Rs. 15,600-39,100/-

+ G.P. Rs. 5400/- instead of Rs. 6000/-. A True

Copy of the Order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the

Petitioners is annexed herewith and marked as

 ANNEXURE- 9 [PAGE NO. __ TO __].

12 21.12.2021 That the Respondent No. 1 again filed a writ

petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021

challenging the Order dated 10.11.2021 in fixing

the pay as per 7th CPC. A True Copy of the Writ

Petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- 10

[PAGE NO. __ TO __].

13 March, 2022 That the Petitioner herein filed counter affidavit in

W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021 stating therein that the

fixation of Respondent No. 1’s scale of pay at Rs.

15,600- 39,100/- with G.P. Rs. 5400/- is legal and

justified as the same was in consonance with the

letters issued by the Respondent No. 2- ICAR

dated 29.03.2011, 09.03.2021, 01.10.2021 and

16.09.2021. A True Copy of the Counter Affidavit

filed by the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 40207 of

2021 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE- 11 [PAGE NO. __ TO __].

14 01.08.2023 That the Hon’ble High Court by its Order dated

01.08.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021

disposed of the writ petition solely by observing

 that the case has already been decided vide

Judgment dated 19.05.2023 so passed in W.P. (C)

No. 40091 of 2021 and other batch matters. It is

submitted that in the common Judgment dated

19.05.2023 passed in W.P. (C) No. 40091 of 2021,

the Hon'ble Single Judge had allowed the similarly

placed writ petitions solely on the basis that the

Petitioners erroneously advised the G.P. of Rs.

6000/- for the post of SMS in the advertisement in

unintentional ignorance of the Letter dated

29.03.2011. A True Copy of the Order dated

01.08.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- 12

[PAGE NO. __ TO __]. A True Copy of the

common judgment dated 19.05.2023 in W.P. (C)

No. 40091 of 2021 of the Hon’ble High Court is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- 13

[PAGE NO. __ TO __]

15 06.10.2023 Being aggrieved by the Order dated 01.08.2023

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in

W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021, the Petitioners

 preferred a Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No. 2528 of

2023. It is pertinent to submit that the Order dated

01.08.2023 was disposed of in terms of the

common judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed by the

Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 40091 of

2021. An application bearing I.A. No. 7416 of

2023 seeking condonation of delay was also filed

along with the writ appeal wherein the Petitioner

has submitted the explanation for the delay caused

and sought condonation of delay. A True Copy of

the Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No. 2528 of 2023 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- 14

[PAGE NO. __ TO __]. A True Copy of the I.A.

No. 7416 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay

filed in W.A. No. 2528 of 2023 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- 15 [PAGE

NO. __ TO __].

16 24.11.2023 That the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court

of Orissa dismissed the Writ Appeal bearing No.

2528 of 2023 solely on the ground that the writ

appeal suffers from delay and laches, without

considering the merits of the present case. It was

erroneously observed in the Impugned Order that

the order impugned in the writ appeal was passed

on 19.05.2023 and the writ appeal has been filed

on 06.10.2023 and that sufficient cause has not

been shown to condone the delay of 110 days in

preferring the writ appeal.

However, it is pertinent to submit that the order

impugned in the writ appeal was, as a matter of

fact, passed on 01.08.2023. The Hon’ble High

Court has erred in observing the date of the

impugned order as 19.05.2023, i.e. the date of the

Common Judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 40091

of 2021, instead of 01.08.2023.

In view of the aforesaid and in view of the

judgment/order of the Hon’ble High Court in the

case of State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das

(W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021 dismissed on

16.07.2021), the writ appeal of the present

Petitioners was dismissed by the Hon’ble High

Court. A True Copy of the Order dated 16.07.2021

passed in W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- 16 [PAGE

 NO. __ TO __].

17 2024 Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XXI Rule 3(1)(A)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

(Arising out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.11.2023
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Orissa at Cuttack in
W.A. No. 2528 of 2023).
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

IN THE MATTER OF POSITION OF THE PARTIES

In the Hon’ble In this Hon’ble

High Court of Court

Orissa

Odisha University of Agriculture and Appellant No. 1 Petitioner No. 1

Technology, Siripur, Unit-3,

Bhubaneswar, District - Khurda - 751

003, represented through its Registrar.

Vice-Chancellor, Odisha University of Appellant No. 2 Petitioner No. 2

Agriculture and Technology, Siripur,

Unit-3, Bhubaneswar, District -

Khurda - 751 003.

VERSUS

Rukeiya Begum, aged about 33 years, Respondent No. Contesting

d/o Mirza Asgar beig, at present 1 Respondent No.

working as Scientist (Plant Science), 1

Krishi Vigyan Kendra, At/PO-Sohela,

Dist- Bargarh.

Indian Council of Agriculture Respondent No. Proforma

Research, represented through its 2 Respondent No.

Director, ATARI, Zone-5, Bhumi 2

Vihar Complex, Block-GB, Sector-III,

Salt Lake, Kolkata-700097, West

Bengal.

Dean Extension Education, Odisha Proforma Proforma

University of Agriculture and Respondent No. Respondent No.

Technology Bhubaneswar, At/P.O.- 3 3

Bhubaneswar, District - Khurda.

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AGAINST THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 24.11.2023 PASSED BY

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ORISSA AT

CUTTACK IN W.A. NO. 2528 OF 2023.

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Petitioner, a fully funded State University, is filing the present

Special Leave Petition against the Order dated 24.11.2023 (hereinafter

referred to as “Impugned Order”) passed by the Hon’ble High Court

of Orissa in the Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No. 2528 of 2023. The

Hon’ble High Court of Orissa had dismissed the writ appeal on the

ground that the writ appeal suffers from delay and laches. It was

further erroneously observed in the Impugned Order that the order

 impugned in the writ appeal was passed on 19.05.2023 and the writ

appeal has been filed on 06.10.2023 and that sufficient cause has not

been shown to condone the delay of more than 110 days in preferring

the writ appeal. However, it is pertinent to submit that the Hon’ble

High Court has erred in observing the date of the impugned order as

19.05.2023, i.e. the date of the Common Judgment passed in W.P. (C)

No. 40091 of 2021, instead of 01.08.2023. In view of the aforesaid and

in view of the judgment/order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of

State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021

dismissed on 16.07.2021), the Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.(C) Diary

No. 9259 of 2023) against which has been dismissed by this Hon’ble

Court vide Order dated 05.04.2023, the writ appeal of the present

Petitioner was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW

The following questions of law arises for consideration before this

Hon’ble Court:

A) Whether the Hon’ble High Court while passing the Impugned

Order ought to have considered the judgment of this Hon’ble

Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors v Nikunja

Kishore Panigrahi, SLP (C) No. 11443 of 2023 wherein this

 Hon’ble Court was pleased to condone the delay of one and a

half years of delay in the filing of a writ appeal?

B) Whether the Hon’ble High Court while passing the Impugned

Order ought to have considered the submissions of the

Petitioner in I.A. No. 7416 of 2023 filed in W.A. No. 2528 of

2023 wherein the Petitioners have shown “sufficient cause”

to condone the delay in preferring the writ appeal?

C) Whether the Hon’ble High Court has fell into gross error of

law inasmuch as the High Court has dismissed the writ

appeal at the very threshold without even referring to the

explanations submitted by the Petitioner in the Application

seeking condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal?

D) Whether the Hon’ble High Court ought to have considered

that the case of the present Petitioner is distinct from the case

of State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No.

15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), the SLP against

which has been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court, vide order

dated 05.04.2023 in S.L.P.(C) Diary No. 9259 of 2023 and

therefore the reliance placed on the same in the Impugned

Order is clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble

Court in its various judgments?

E) Whether the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate the

fundamental difference between the present case and that of

State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das, W.P.(C) No. 15763

of 2021 inasmuch as in the present case there was an

explanation by way of application for condonation of delay

whereas in Surama Manjari Das there was no application for

condonation of delay at all?

F) Whether the impugned order passed by the High Court is

contrary to the Order dated 21.11.2023 passed by this

Hon’ble court in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Nikunja Kishore

Panigrahi, SLP (C) No. 11443 of 2023 wherein this Hon’ble

court has set aside an identical order which was passed by the

High Court solely relying on the Judgement of Surama

Manjari Das?

G) Whether the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court has

failed to appreciate that the cases of government departments

require a more liberal approach while considering an

application for condonation of delay inasmuch as a decision

in cases of government department would necessarily need

multiple level of consideration which may further cause a

delay?
H) Whether the High Court has failed to appreciate the

principles of law enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in a

catena of decisions including in State of Nagaland vs. Lipok

Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752 and G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors vs.

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC

142?

I) Whether the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate the

principles of law laid down by this Hon’ble court in a catena

of decisions where this Hon’ble Court has consistently held

that governmental decisions are provably slow encumbered,

as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in

the process of their making?

J) Whether the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate the

fact that the limitation period is not an instrument to destroy

the existing rights of the parties and it is merely a technical

and procedural requirement, and therefore, the power to

condone delay must be exercised liberally, reasonably and a

more liberal approach must be adopted in cases where the

State Departments are before the Court seeking condonation

of delay?

K) Whether the Hon’ble High Court fell into gross error of law

inasmuch as the High Court has failed to look into the merit
 of the case even for the purpose of prima facie satisfaction

and thereby the Hon’ble High Court has failed to exercise its

jurisdiction in the matter?

L) Whether the Hon’ble High Court ought to have considered

that the advertisement dated 16.08.2014 was published by the

Petitioner in unintentional ignorance of the Letter dated

29.03.2011, inviting applications from eligible candidates for

recruitment to vacant posts in different disciplines in KVKs

functioning under OUAT including the post of SMS?

M) Whether the Hon’ble High Court ought to have considered

the nature, extent and financial and other implications arising

out of the matter while deciding the case and passing the

impugned order?

N) Whether the High Court ought to have considered the case on

merit inasmuch as a serial financial implication is involved

on the state exchequer as well as it will affect the well-being

and survival of the Petitioner University which is wholly

dependent upon the State Government for its funding

requirements?

O) Whether the Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated

the fact that the Respondent No. 1 was employed in a specific

project as per the guidelines of the ICAR and their salary and
 perks are expressly regulated as per the norms of the ICAR

and any deviation from the said norms would cause serious

financial, regulatory, legislative and other problems that will

affect the functioning of the Petitioner University as well as

the exchequer of the State Government?

P) Whether the High Court ought to have appreciated the huge

implication arising out of the decision inasmuch as a large

number of employees have been filing similar kind of writ

petitions and frequently the matter travels up to the Hon’ble

Supreme Court clogging the roster of the court as well as

causing a severe drain on the finances and resources of the

Petitioner University?

Q) Whether the Hon’ble High Court while passing the Impugned

Order ought to have considered that the mere dismissal of

SLP (C) Diary No. 9259 of 2023 (the reliance on which has

been placed while disposing of W.A. No. 2528 of 2023 vide

Order dated 24.11.2023) would not mean that the view of the

Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) 15763 of 2021 has been

approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?

R) Whether the Hon’ble High Court while passing the Impugned

Order ought to have considered the Order passed by this

Hon’ble Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sulekh

 Chandra Pradhan, AIR 2022 SC 2030 wherein it has been

held that mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition would

not mean that the view of the Hon’ble High Court has been

approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?

S) Whether the Hon’ble High Court while passing the Impugned

Order ought to have considered that in case the relief sought

by the present Respondent No. 1 is granted, this would result

in huge financial implication on the State Govt. considering

like claims from a large number of employees?

T) Whether the Hon’ble High Court has erred in observing the

date of the impugned order as 19.05.2023, i.e. the date of the

Common Judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 40091 of 2021,

instead of 01.08.2023 and has, as a consequence,

miscalculated the number of days of delay?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2)

The Petitioners states that no other petition seeking Special Leave to

Appeal has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned

judgment and final order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Orissa in W.A. No. 2528 of 2023.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5

 The Annexure P-1 to P-___ produced along with the present Special

Leave Petition are true copies of the pleadings/documents that

formed part of the record of the case in the Hon’ble High Court

below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this

petition.

5. GROUNDS:

That the present Special Leave to Appeal is sought for on the

following amongst the other grounds:

A. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has rejected the writ

appeal of the Petitioner at the very threshold without even

considering any of the explanations submitted by the

Petitioner in its application bearing I.A. No. 7416 of 2023

seeking condonation of delay.

B. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has fell into gross error

of law inasmuch as the High Court has failed to refer to the

central principle of law enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in

several decisions wherein this Hon’ble Court has

consistently held that while considering an application for

condonation of delay filed by the government or its

instrumentality, the courts must adopt a more liberal

approach considering the peculiar nature of functioning of

 the government which requires multiple level of

considerations, discussions, deliberations and pushing of the

files from the table of one official to another on several

occasions.

C. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court while passing the

Impugned Order ought to have considered the submissions

of the Petitioner in I.A. No. 7416 of 2023 filed in W.A. No.

2528 of 2023 wherein the Petitioners have shown “sufficient

cause” to condone the delay in preferring the writ appeal.

D. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has erred in observing

the date of the impugned order as 19.05.2023, i.e. the date of

the Common Judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 40091 of

2021, instead of 01.08.2023 and has, as a consequence,

miscalculated the number of days of delay.

E. BECAUSE in O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh, (1984) 4

SCC 66, a Bench of three Judges had held that if the refusal

to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice,

it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was

accordingly condoned in the matter.

F. BECAUSE the delay in filing of the Writ Appeal in the

present case is purely administrative in nature and the

aforesaid cause for the delay would constitute as “sufficient

 cause” and therefore, the Hon’ble High Court ought to have

condoned the delay in filing the writ appeal and ought to

have heard the present case on merit.

G. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in the case of State of

Odisha & Ors v Nikunja Kishore Panigrahi, SLP (C) No.

11443 of 2023 was pleased to condone the delay of one and

a half years of delay in the filing of a writ appeal by the

State of Odisha by taking into account the larger

ramifications and financial liability that was to accrue on the

State exchequer by virtue of the dismissal of the writ appeal

by the Hon’ble High Court on the sole ground of delay.

H. BECAUSE in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, (1987)

2 SCC 107, a Bench of two Judges considered the question

of limitation in an appeal filed by the State and held that

Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the court to do

substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on

merits. The expression “sufficient cause” is adequately

elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful

manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the

life purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is

common knowledge that this Court has been making a

justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this

Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated

down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. This Court

reiterated that the expression “every day's delay must be

explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should

be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational,

common-sense, pragmatic manner. When substantial

justice and technical considerations are pitted against each

other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in

injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned

deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on

account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by

resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is

not respected on account of its power to legalise injustice on

technical grounds but because it is capable of removing

injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented

approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause

for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The

fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and

not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of

equality before law demands that all litigants, including the

 State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the

law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no

warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the

State is the applicant. The delay was accordingly condoned.

I. BECAUSE in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3

SCC 752, it was observed by this Hon’ble Court that:

“15. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by

officers/agencies proverbially at a slow pace and

encumbered process of pushing the files from table to

table and keeping it on the table for considerable time

causing delay — intentional or otherwise — is a

routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in

the process of their making decision is a common

feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not

impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are

lost for such default no person is individually

affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is

public interest. The expression “sufficient cause”

should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in a

justice-oriented approach rather than the technical

detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's

delay. The factors which are peculiar to and

characteristic of the functioning of the governmental

conditions would be cognizant to and requires

adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented

process. The court should decide the matters on

merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No

separate standards to determine the cause laid by the

State vis-à-vis private litigant could be laid to prove

strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at

appropriate level should constitute legal cells to

examine the cases whether any legal principles are

involved for decision by the courts or whether cases

require adjustment and should authorise the officers

to take a decision or give appropriate permission for

settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal,

needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer

responsible to file the appeal and he should be made

personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the

State cannot be put on the same footing as an

individual. The individual would always be quick in

taking the decision whether he would pursue the

remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is

a person legally injured while the State is an

 impersonal machinery working through its officers

or servants.”

J. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court has consistently held that in

cases where the State Department or its instrumentality is

seeking condonation of delay, the Court should approach the

matter with more liberal consideration and even in cases

where there is a deliberate or negligent or casual conduct on

on the part of the concerned officers of the government, the

court should condone delay, and in appropriate cases some

cost may be imposed but the Court should not reject a

meritorious case solely on the ground of delay against the

government.

K. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court ought to have

appreciated and applied the principles of law enunciated by

this Hon’ble court in a series of judgments wherein this

Hon’ble Court has heard and condoned the delay especially

in cases of the government or a government instrumentality.

L. BECAUSE in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Y.

Moideen Kunhi (dead) by LRs & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 192,

this Hon’ble Court, while keeping in view the importance of

questions of law which are involved, has in the case of the

government, condoned a delay of more than nearly 6500

 days against the original order and about 300 days as far as

the review petition is concerned.

M. BECAUSE in the case of G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors. Vs.

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2

SCC 142, it was observed by this Hon’ble Court that:

“14….the expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5

must receive a liberal construction so as to advance

substantial justice and generally delays in preferring

appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of

justice where no gross negligence or deliberate

inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party

seeking condonation of the delay.

17……..Governmental decisions are proverbially slow

encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of

procedural red tape in the process of their making. A

certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not

impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear

responsibility of Government must have “a little play

at the joints”. Due recognition of these limitations on

governmental functioning — of course, within

reasonable limits — is necessary if the judicial

approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would,

 perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put government

and private parties on the same footing in all respects

in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of

governmental functioning is procedural delay

incidental to the decision-making process….”

N. BECAUSE in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &

Anr. vs. MST Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107, this Hon'ble

Court has observed as under:

“4. When substantial justice and technical

considerations are pitted against each other, cause of

substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the

other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice

being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on

account of its power to legalise injustice on technical

grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice

and is expected to do so.”

O. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court

while passing the impugned order has categorically failed to

consider the facts of the case at all and thus the impugned
 order is patently erroneous, passed without the application of

judicial mind and thus is liable to be set aside.

P. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court

while passing the impugned order ought to have considered

that the advertisement dated 16.08.2014 was published by

the Petitioner in unintentional ignorance of the Letter dated

29.03.2011, inviting applications from eligible candidates

for recruitment to vacant posts in different disciplines in

KVKs functioning under OUAT including the post of SMS.

Q. BECAUSE it has been made clear under the terms and

conditions of the advertisement dated 16.08.2014 that:

(1) The KVK employees are contractual project

staff and allowed regular scale of pay with

annual increments and other benefits as per

ICAR Guidelines till 100% funding of ICAR

continues.

(2) The KVK employees are not entitled to terminal

benefits and their service is coterminous with

the Central project i.e. till the period 100%

funds are made available by ICAR.

 (3) The State Government and OUAT will not

shoulder any kind of liability pertaining to

KVK.

Q. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate

that financial, administrative, regulatory and practical

complications would arise inasmuch as the Respondent No.

1 is employed in a fully funded project of ICAR and as per

the norms prescribed by the ICAR, the Petitioners cannot

pay an AGP of more than Rs. 5400/- that was prescribed by

the ICAR.

R. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court

ought to have considered that the Hon’ble Single Judge has

made an erroneous conclusion having found that the entire

project of scheme of KVKs is 100% funded by ICAR and

having referred to the letters issued by the ICAR dated

29.03.2011, 09.03.2021, 01.10.2021 and 16.09.2021, the

Hon’ble High Court has erred by fixing the liability on the

Petitioners.

S. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court ought to have

appreciated that any deviation from the payment norms of

the ICAR would lead to serious drain on the financial

 resources of the Petitioner University inasmuch as the

Petitioner University is fully dependent on the grant

provided by the State Government.

T. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate

that a large number of employees have been approaching the

High Court seeking similar reliefs which are not possible for

the Petitioner University to grant inasmuch as Petitioner

University has no resources to accommodate such demands.

U. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court has failed to appreciate

that ICAR has specifically provided the norms that an

annual grade pay will be not more than Rs. 5400/- for each

employee, and therefore, any demand for additional payment

of AGP is wholly unsustainable and would cause grave and

irreparable prejudice and injustice to the Petitioner

University.

V. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court has not even referred to

the contentions of the Petitioner nor the High Court has

referred to any of the pleadings or documents that had been

referred, relied or brought on record by the Petitioner before

the High Court and in such view of the matter the impugned

order suffers from a total non application of mind and it

requires to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

W. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has not even referred to

the nature of the case even for reaching a primary

satisfaction as to whether the prayer made by the

Respondent No. 1 seeking payment of AGP more than that

is prescribed by ICAR is maintainable or not.

X. BECAUSE this Hon’ble court has consistently held that

even while considering the application for condonation of

delay, the courts shall take into consideration the merits of

the case and if merit of the case requires interference, the

courts shall normally condone the delay and decide the

matter on merit.

Y. BECAUSE the conclusion in Para 22 of the common

judgment dated 19.05.2023 is to the following extent:

“No doubt, the project undertaken by the OUAT is

being 100% financed by ICAR, the OUAT is

independently liable to the employees, who were

engaged by them including the petitioners.

Therefore, the OUAT is legally liable to pay the

scale of pay with Grade Pay that was advertised

and the appointment was made subject to such

scale of pay with Grade Pay".

Z. BECAUSE such finding of the Hon'ble Single Judge is not

in conformity with the letters of ICAR, in the sense that

A.G.P. of Rs. 6000/- that was erroneous and which was

subsequently rectified to A.G.P. of Rs. 5400/-.

AA. BECAUSE the directions of the Hon'ble Single Bench

regarding "entitlement" to the A.G.P. on the basis of the

advertisement is erroneous, as the advertisement would not

determine the "entitlement" under the

Policy/Guidelines/Circulars being the law governing the

field of "entitlement" of the Respondent No. 1, so far as

A.G.P. is concerned.

BB.BECAUSE it is humbly submitted that there is no estoppel

in law meaning thereby that even if the advertisement

mistakenly advertised the A.G.P. to be Rs. 6000/-, the

"entitlement" of the Respondent No. 1 cannot exceed Rs.

5400/- which he was legally entitled to get for rendering his

service as "SMS" in KVK.

CC.BECAUSE an erroneously conferred benefit cannot create

or vest any right to claim such benefit. Therefore, in the

impugned order, the finding that the advertisement

erroneously advertised wrong A.G.P. of Rs. 6000/- is

binding on the Petitioners, is bad in law. The Respondent

 No. 1 cannot claim any legal right on such

defective/erroneous advertisement.

DD. BECAUSE if an advertisement is made de hors the

statutory rules, it is void ab initio and the appointee cannot

claim vested right to have accrued in its favour on it

applying pursuant to an advertisement.

EE. BECAUSE in view of the submissions made above, the

judgment dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Single

Judge is bad in law.

FF. BECAUSE the Impugned Order is in complete violation of

the law laid down in National Textile Workers' Union v.

P.R. Ramakrishnan, (1983) 1 SCC 228, wherein this

Hon’ble Court held that:

“Now it is an elementary principle of law, well-

settled as a result of several decisions of this

Court and particularly the decisions in State of

Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Del, A.K. Kraipak v.

Union of India and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of

India that no order involving adverse civil

consequences can be passed against any person

without giving him an opportunity to be heard

against the passing of such order and this rule

 applies irrespective of whether the proceeding in

which it is passed is a quasi-judicial or an

administrative proceeding.”

GG. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court ought to have

considered that the case of the present Petitioner is distinct

from the case of State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das

(W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), the

SLP against which has been dismissed by this Hon’ble

Court, vide order dated 05.04.2023 in S.L.P.(C) Diary No.

9259 of 2023 and therefore the reliance placed on the same

in the Impugned Order is clearly contrary to the law laid

down by this Hon’ble Court in its various judgments.

HH. BECAUSE it is pertinent to submit that while passing

the Order dated 16.07.2021 in State of Odisha v. Surama

Manjari Das, W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021, it was clearly

noted by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of

Orissa that in the aforesaid matter, there was neither an

application for condonation of delay nor any explanation for

such delay in filing the writ application was provided.

However, in the present case, the Petitioner has filed a

detailed application seeking condonation of delay which

 clearly and effectively provides sufficient cause and

reasoning for the delay caused.

II. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court while passing the

Impugned Order ought to have considered that the mere

dismissal of SLP (C) Diary No. 9259 of 2023 (the reliance

on which has been placed while disposing of W.A. No. 2528

of 2023 vide Order dated 24.11.2023) would not mean that

the view of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) 15763 of

2021 has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

JJ. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court while passing the

Impugned Order ought to have considered the Order passed

by this Hon’ble Court in State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sulekh

Chandra Pradhan, AIR 2022 SC 2030 wherein it has been

held that mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition would

not mean that the view of the Hon’ble High Court has been

approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

KK. BECAUSE in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M.

Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was observed by this

Hon’ble Court that:

“11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the

rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do

not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy

promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to

repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury.

The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal

remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered.

Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit.

During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout

up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy

by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed

for each remedy. Unending period for launching the

remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and

consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus

founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the

maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for

the general welfare that a period be put to litigation).

Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights

of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do

not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy

promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be

kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would

result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his

cause. There is no presumption that delay in

 approaching the court is always deliberate. This

Court has held that the words “sufficient cause”

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a

liberal construction so as to advance substantial

justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal

Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575 : (1969) 1 SCR 1006]

and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah

Municipality [(1972) 1 SCC 366 : AIR 1972 SC 749]

.”

LL. BECAUSE in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. &

Ors. Vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek, etc, (2010) 14 SCC 419,

it was observed by this Hon’ble Court that:

“6. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the

opinion that in the instant case a sufficient cause had

been made out for condonation of delay in filing the

appeal and therefore, the High Court erred in declining

to condone the same. It is true that even upon showing a

sufficient cause, a party is not entitled to the

condonation of delay as a matter of right, yet it is trite

that in construing sufficient cause, the courts generally

follow a liberal approach particularly when no

 negligence, inaction or mala fides can be imputed to the

party. (See Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal

Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575 : (1969) 1 SCR

1006] , State of W.B. v. Howrah Municipality [(1972)

1 SCC 366] , N. Balakrishnan v. M.

Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] and Sital Prasad

Saxena v. Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 163] .)

10. It is manifest that though Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963 envisages the explanation of delay to the

satisfaction of the court, and makes no distinction

between the State and the citizen, nonetheless adoption

of a strict standard of proof in case of the Government,

which is dependent on the actions of its officials, who

often do not have any personal interest in its

transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice

and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible

in such cases."

MM. BECAUSE the Order dated 01.08.2023, that was

impugned in the writ appeal, has been passed mechanically

and no substantial reasons have been assigned for passing

the aforesaid Order. It is a settled law that an order inviting

 civil consequences must carry the reasons upon which the

order is based. In the instant case, the Order dated

01.08.2023 being devoid of any reasons is liable to be set

aside.

NN. BECAUSE the Order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in the writ petition is a completely

unreasoned order which has solely relied upon its own Order

dated 19.05.2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 40091 of 2021

and has completely failed to examine the merits of the

present case.

OO. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in Cyril Lasrado v.

Juliana Maria Lasrado, (2004) 7 SCC 431, held that:

“12…..Reasons are live links between the mind of

the decision-taker to the controversy in question and

the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons

substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis

on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals

the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its

silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts

to perform their appellate function or exercise the

power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of

the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable

 part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least

sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the

matter before court. Another rationale is that the

affected party can know why the decision has gone

against him. One of the salutary requirements of

natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order

made, in other words, a speaking out. The

“inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily

incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial

performance”

PP. BECAUSE the Order dated 01.08.2023 that has been passed

placing sole reliance upon the Order dated 19.05.2023 in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 40091 of 2021 without even

considering the merits of the case is directly in contravention

of the established principles of law.

QQ. BECAUSE, in State of W.B. v. Atul Krishna Shaw &

Anr., 1990 AIR SC 2205, this Hon’ble Court observed that:

“7. … Giving of reasons is an essential element of

administration of justice. A right to reason is, there-

fore, an indispensable part of sound system of judi-

cial review.”
 RR.BECAUSE the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2023 read with

the Order dated 01.08.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa is completely

and absolutely erroneous, unsustainable and has been passed

in a mechanical manner.

SS. That the present Petition is being filed bonafide and in the

interest of justice.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

(a) The Petitioner has a very good prima facie case on merits

inasmuch as the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2023 and the

Order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021 is wholly

erroneous and unsustainable.

(b) The balance of convenience overwhelmingly lies in favour of

the Petitioner inasmuch as the Petitioner shall suffer a huge

financial crisis and an unbearable burden would be caused in

case the Order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court in W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021 is not stayed and Petitioner

is directed to make payment at the higher rate of Annual Grade

Pay than that prescribed by ICAR.

 (c) That in some of the similar cases, the Respondents have already

filed contempt proceedings and in such view of the matter, an

irreparable and irreversible injustice shall be caused to the

Petitioner in case stay is not granted by this Hon’ble Court.

(d) The balance of convenience lies in the favour of the Petitioner

inasmuch as it is imperative in the interest of justice that the

Order dated 01.08.2023 may be a stayed and the Petitioner may

be saved from the multiple contempt proceedings otherwise the

whole proceedings before this Hon’ble Court would become

infructuous.

(e) An irreversible prejudice and injustice would be caused to the

Petitioner and a significant burden would be placed on the

public exchequer in case a stay order is not passed against the

Order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Orissa in W.P. (C) No. 40207 of 2021. The consideration of

equity and justice also lies in favour of the Petitioner.

7. MAIN PRAYER

It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

graciously be pleased to:

(a) Allow the present Petition and grant Special Leave to Appeal

against the impugned Order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the

 Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. No. 2528 of

2023; AND/OR

(b) Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. INTERIM PRAYER

It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to:

(a) Pass appropriate order or direction to grant interim ex-parte stay

on the implementation of the Order dated 01.08.2023 passed by

the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No.

40207 of 2021; AND/OR

(b) Pass any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONERS AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY: Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj

DRAWN ON: 03.03.2024

FILED BY:

[Naveen Kumar]

Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner

NEW DELHI

DATE:

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XXI Rule 3(1)(A)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
(Arising out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.11.2023
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Orissa at Cuttack in
W.A. No. 2528 of 2023).
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
IN THE MATTER OF:
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology & Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
Rukeiya Begum & Ors. …Respondents
 CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleading
before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and the material relied
upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have
been taken or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified
that the copies of documents attached to the Special Leave Petition are
necessary to answer the questions of law raised in the petition or to make
out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this
Hon’ble Court. This Certificate is given on the basis of the instructions
given by the Petitioner or the person authorized by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition.
FILED BY:

[Naveen Kumar]
Advocate on-Record for the Petitioner
NEW DELHI
DATED:

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XXI Rule 3(1)(A)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

(Arising out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.11.2023
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Orissa at Cuttack in
W.A. No. 2528 of 2023).
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
IN THE MATTER OF:
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology & Anr. …Petitioners
 Versus
Rukeiya Begum & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION.

TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Petitioner, a wholly funded State University, is filing the

present Special Leave Petition against the Order dated 24.11.2023

(hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”) passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the Writ Appeal bearing No. 2528 of

2023 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ

appeal on the ground that the writ appeal suffers from delay and

laches. It was observed in the Impugned Order that the order

impugned in the writ appeal was passed on 01.08.2023 and the writ

appeal has been filed on 06.10.2023 and that sufficient cause has not

been shown to condone the delay of 110 days in preferring the writ

appeal. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the judgment/order of

the Hon’ble High Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Surama

Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021),

the Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.(C) Diary No. 9259 of 2023)

against which has been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court vide order

dated 05.04.2023, the writ appeal of the present Petitioner was

dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.

2. The Petitioner submits that the averment made in the Special

Leave Petition may be treated as part and parcel of the present

Application and are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and

convenience.

3. It is submitted that the delay in filing of the present Special Leave

Petition is on account of obtaining the certified copy of the impugned

Order dated 24.11.2023 and seeking instructions from various Govt.

Authorities. After obtaining the certified copy and after receiving the

necessary instructions, the Petitioners have acted in an expedite

manner and have immediately initiated the process for filing of the

Special Leave to Appeal before this Hon’ble Court.

4. It is further submitted that from the period between 24.11.2023 till

the date of filing of the present SLP, the necessary and required

documents were compiled, their true copies were typed and the draft

of the SLP was accordingly prepared which took some time,

thereafter which, the present Special Leave to Appeal has been

immediately filed.
 5. That the Petitioners have a prima facie good case in their favour

and an irreparable loss and injury would be caused in case the delay

in filing the present Special Leave Petition is not condoned by this

Hon'ble Court.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be

pleased to:

a) Condone the delay of ___ days in filing the present Special Leave

Petition against impugned judgment and final order dated 24.11.2023

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Orissa at Cuttack

in W.A. No. 2528 of 2023; AND/OR

b) Pass any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IS

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:

[Naveen Kumar]
Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner
NEW DELHI
DATED:
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Order XXI Rule 3(1)(A)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

(Arising out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.11.2023
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Orissa at Cuttack in
W.A. No. 2528 of 2023).
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
IN THE MATTER OF:
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology & Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
Rukeiya Begum & Ors. …Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is / are within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of…………… days

in filing the same against Order dated ___________ and Petition for

condonation of …… days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of …………… days in re-filing the petition and

petitioner for condonation of ………… days delay in refiling has been

filed.

BRANCH OFFICER
Place: New Delhi
Dated:

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION: XIV (Odisha)

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

[ ] Central Act: (Title)

[ ] Section:
[ ] Central Rule: (Title) N.A.
[ ] Rule No(s): N.A.

[ ] State Act: (Title) N/A

[ ] Section: N.A.

[ ] State Rule: (Title) N/A

[ ] Rule No(s): N/A
[ ] Impugned Interim Order: (Date) N/A
[ ] Impugned Final Order/Decree: (Date) 24.11.2023

[ ] High Court: (Name) High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

[ ] Names of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi, Mr.
Justice Murahari Sri Raman

[ ] Tribunal/Authority: (Name) N/A

1. Nature of matter: [√] Civil [x] Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1: Odisha University of Agriculture and

Technology
(b) E-mail ID: N/A
(c) Mobile phone number: N/A

3. (a) Respondent No.1: Rukeiya Begum

(b) e-mail ID: N/A
(c) Mobile phone number: N/A

4. (a) Main Category classification:

(b) Sub-classification:

5. Not to be listed before: N/A

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with

citation, if any, & case details: No similar disposed of matter.

(b) Similar pending matter with case details: No similar pending

matter.
7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: [ ] Yes [ ] No
(b) FIR No. N/A
(c) Police Station: N/A
(d) Sentence Awarded: N/A
(e) Period of sentence undergone including
period of Detention/Custody Undergone N/A

8. Land Acquisition Matters:

(a) Date of Section 4 notification: N/A
(b) Date of Section 6 notification: N/A
(c) Date of Section 17 notification: N/A

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N/A

10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only):

[x] Senior citizen > 65 years [x] SC/ST [x] Woman/child [x] Disabled [x]
Legal Aid case [x] In custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): N/A

Date: AOR for Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

New Delhi

[Naveen Kumar]
Advocate on-Record for the Petitioner
D-374, Ground Floor, Defence Colony
New Delhi-110024,
Mobile No:- 9899697779,
Email. naveenkraor@gmail.com