Courts cannot grant relief that has not been specifically pleaded or prayed for by the parties.

The Applicant was provisionally appointed as an Extra-Departmental (ED) Telegram Messenger on December 21, 1990, and was later sent on deputation to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bargarh, in 1995.

Following the discontinuation of telegram services in 2013, the Applicant sought regularization and equal pay, leading to the filing of O.A. No. 595/2017.

In that matter, the Tribunal directed the respondents to grant the minimum pay scale of Group 'D' employees and repatriate the Applicant to the Department of Posts.

However, the High Court of Orissa subsequently set aside the Tribunal's 2017 order, holding it unsustainable in law.

In the present O.A., the Applicant initially challenged the repatriation orders dated September 21, 2019, and September 27, 2019, seeking their quashing and a direction that repatriation occur only after obtaining posting consent and releasing entitlements under the previous (now quashed) Tribunal order.

1. Whether the Tribunal can grant a relief (counting of past service) that was not specifically pleaded or prayed for in the original application.

2. Whether the Original Application remains maintainable after the Applicant chose not to press the primary prayers regarding the repatriation orders.

The Tribunal applied the established legal principle that a court cannot grant relief that has not been specifically prayed for or pleaded by the parties.

It held that granting unpleaded relief deprives the opposing party of the opportunity to respond, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The Tribunal relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court precedents of Om Prakash Ors. v. Ram Kumar Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 409) and Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi Ors. (AIR 2010 SC 475), which mandate strict adherence to pleadings for the grant of relief.

The Tribunal noted that during the hearing, the Applicant’s counsel stated that the Applicant had already joined the post upon repatriation and, therefore, would not press the primary prayers (8-1 and 8-2) challenging the repatriation orders.

The Applicant instead requested the Tribunal to direct the Respondents to count his past service.

The Tribunal found that this request for counting past service was not included in the original pleadings or the prayer clause of the O.A.

Following the doctrine laid down in Om Prakash and Bharat Amratlal Kothari, the Bench reasoned that it was legally prohibited from granting such relief in the absence of specific pleadings.

Furthermore, since the primary prayers were abandoned by the Applicant, the Tribunal determined there was no remaining substratum for adjudication.

Consequently, since the Applicant did not press the primary prayers for which the O.A. was filed, the matter was rendered infructuous.

The O.A. was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.