WA/513/2026 of BIRANCHI NARAYAN NATH Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 July 2026

ORDER

01.07.2026

03.

1. Challenging order dated 24th March, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in disposing of the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.8659 of 2026, this intra-court appeal has been preferred.

2. A piquant situation has arisen in the instant case when second writ petition filed by the appellant is dismissed as the appellant cannot be permitted to claim the same reliefs which had already been adjudicated in an earlier writ petition.

3. The appellant attained superannuation, yet the encashment of an unutilized leave was not given to him. Despite the representations having made and the attention of the competent authority is being invited, the grievance persists as the authorities showed an apathetic attitude in addressing the grievance so raised. The appellant was constrained to file the writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.(C) No.26423 of 2023 claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the opposite parties as to why they will not be directed to sanction, draw and disburse the leave salary in lieu of the un-utilized earned leave of 300 days in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his superannuation till actual disbursement and on their failure to show cause or showing insufficient cause to make the RULE absolute by directing them to sanction, draw and disburse such leave salary in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his superannuation till the date of actual disbursement, and/or may further be pleased to pass such other or further order(s), as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. By an order dated 17th August, 2023, the said writ petition was disposed of in the following manner:

“7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, keeping in view the limited nature of grievance involved in the writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Additional Chief Secretary in the department of Forest and Environment, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on recommendation of the Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests vide his letter dated 07.08.2023 under Annexure-4 to the writ application in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner. Decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

8. It is further directed that in the event the petitioner is lawfully entitled to the benefits, the same be sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of taking such decision.”

5. It is apparent and evident from a bare look of the language employed in the said order that the Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests vide his letter dated 7th August, 2023 made a recommendation to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Odisha to disburse and/or release the unutilized leave accumulated to the appellant as he is otherwise entitled therefor. The Single Bench directed the said Authority, i.e., the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment to consider and act on the basis of such recommendation within the time stipulated therein. The recommendation of the Assistant Chief Conservator of Forest does not convey any message that while sanctioning the unutilized leave, the interest should also be awarded as the Authorities have unreasonably withheld the disbursement and, therefore, have overreached on the right accrued to the appellant. Be that as it may, even if we consider that the Authorities are inhibited by any procedural hassles, yet it is open to the aggrieved person while approaching the Court to claim the interest by way of compensation as he was deprived to utilize the usufructs therefrom. In fact, the appellant prayed for such reliefs in the earlier writ petition, but there is no express relief granted by the Court while disposing of the same that the Authority would also consider the claim of an interest while disbursing the unutilized leave accumulated to the appellant. We can safely refer to Explanation V appended to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerating the principles of Res Judicata which is based on a public policy and aims to avoid frequent litigations at the behest of the person before the Court of law. The said explanation categorically stipulates that in the event the Court has not expressly granted the relief so claimed in the legal proceeding, it would be deemed that the said relief is denied and/or refused by the Court.

6. If the express indication is not made in the order passed in the earlier writ petition in respect of the interest so claimed, by application of Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would be deemed to have been refused by the Court and, therefore, the appellant is precluded from claiming such relief in the second round of litigation.

7. We, thus, do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the ultimate decision taken by the Single Bench in dismissing the writ petition and, therefore, the instant writ appeal sans merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT (SECY I/C) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 02-Jul-2026 14:00:48 Signature Not Verified