Unconditional Implementation of Judicial Orders and Doctrine of Waiver Bar Subsequent Challenges by Welfare States

The Appellants (State of Odisha) challenged orders passed by a learned Single Judge which quashed the removal of the Respondents from their positions as Teachers and directed their reinstatement

The lead case originated from W.P.(C) No. 11614 of 2023, where the employee’s removal was set aside on October 3, 2023

Following that judgment, the State issued an Office Order on October 31, 2023, unconditionally reinstating the employee (Dhruba Charan Naik) without reserving the right to challenge the order

Despite this implementation, the State later filed these Writ Appeals challenging the Single Judge's reasoning, citing a delay of up to 484 days in the lead case

1. Whether the State can challenge a Writ Court’s order after unconditionally implementing it without reserving the right to appeal

2. Whether the removal of employees who have rendered over two decades of continuous service is sustainable based on judicial decisions in unrelated third-party cases

3. Whether the appeals are maintainable despite a significant delay of 484 days without a plausible explanation

The court applied the Doctrine of Waiver, which prevents a party from challenging an order after voluntary and unconditional compliance

It relied on the principle that a Welfare State cannot "blow hot and cold" (approbate and reprobate), as established in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234

Furthermore, the court emphasized that in service matters, judgments are generally in personam (binding only on parties) and not in rem, meaning the removal of one employee cannot be justified solely because a different employee's removal was upheld in another case

The court reasoned that since the State had already implemented the Single Judge's order through the Office Order dated October 31, 2023, and failed to plead this implementation in the appeal memo, the subsequent challenge was barred by waiver and lack of fairness

The court noted that the Respondents had served for over twenty years without complaint; therefore, the State's attempt to terminate them based on precedents involving other individuals lacked the "elements of justice"

Regarding the procedural delay, the court found no plausible explanation for the 484-day lag, especially since the State had already signaled its acceptance of the judgment by reinstating the lead respondent

It held that the State cannot abruptly end the services of long-term employees through an inconsistent and delayed legal challenge after having already complied with the lower court's directions

The Court directed the State to implement the impugned orders if not already done and ordered that terminal benefits for retired employees be released within eight weeks