IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4892 of 2026 Union of India & Ors. …. Petitioners Represented by Adv.- Mr. Gopinath Sethi, Sr. Panel Counsel -versus- Sadhan Kumar Sinha …. Opp. Party Represented by Adv.- CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 18.02.2026 The Union Government and its officials are before this Court for laying a challenge to order dated 09.08.2023 entered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack whereby Opposite Party’s O.A. No.260/00275 of 2021 having been favoured, the following relief has been bestowed on them: “4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 186/2022 dated 21.07.2023 (Ramesh Chandra Hota Vs. UOI & Ors.) wherein, in similar matter, this Tribunal has allowed the benefit of notional increment in favour of the applicant therein, which is perused. In view of the facts and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted above, the stand taken by the respondents has lost its significance leading to the irresistible conclusion that the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this OA. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2020 (A/3) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to fix the pay and pensionary benefits after granting one notional increment to the applicant w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and Order No. 01. revise and pay him the arrears of pension and pensionary benefits within 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. In the result, this OA stands allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.” 2. Learned Senior Panel Counsel representing the petitioners vehemently argues that the accrual of the increment is always by the particular date and that would not enure to the benefit of an employee, who lays his office down on attaining the superannuation next day. This aspect having not been properly appreciated, the Tribunal has committed gross error in framing the judgment impugned herein. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the impugned order of the Tribunal has been structured keeping in view the Apex Court decision in The Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 decided on 11.04.2023. This apart, similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in OA No.186 of 2022 between Ramesh Chandra Hota v. UOI & Others, disposed off vide order dated 21.07.2023. It is not the case of Petitioners that these judgments have been wrongly applied. Even otherwise, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal has structured the same consistently with the view of the Apex Court and of its predecessor members in the subsequent case, namely, O.A No.186 of 2022. 4. It is relevant to state that this is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the ornamental employment of Article 226 being insignificant. In this limited supervisory jurisdiction, the Petitioners have to show not only order being wrong but it is being unsustainable even otherwise. That unsustainable elements are not demonstrated in this petition. In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected in limine and accordingly it is. However, the Petitioners are granted a period of eight (8) weeks for implementing the impugned order of the Tribunal in its letter & sprit. This concession is given on the submission of learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that there is contempt proceeding pending for the non-compliance of impugned order. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Opposite Party by speed post immediately. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Prasant