Orissa High Court
Khitish Chandra Patra vs State Of Odisha & Others on 6 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.213 of 2020
Khitish Chandra Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. G.C. Sahu, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.M.K.Balabantaray, AGA
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
06.04.2023
Order No
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. G.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter
alia with the following prayer:-
<i) the order under Annexure-14 shall not be quashed;
ii) the opposite parties shall not be directed to pay salary to the
petitioner for the period from 1.12.1994 to 31.1.2006 with
corresponding revisions as per revised scale of pay Rules.
iii) the opposite parties shall not be directed to sanction and
disburse the pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits from
1.2.2006.
iv) the opposite parties shall not be directed to accord notional
promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Senior Radiographer
and fix the pay scale accordingly=.
4. It is contended that the Petitioner while continuing as
a Radiographer in the establishment of Opposite Party
No.2, he was placed under suspension vide order dated
15.11.1994 because of his implication in a vigilance
proceeding.
// 2 //
4.1. It is further contended that while continuing on such
suspension, the Petitioner was allowed to retire from his
service w.e.f. 31.01.2006 vide order dated 24.01.2006
under Annexure-9. But it is contended that due to non-
disposal of the vigilance proceeding so initiated vide
Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.31 dated 27.09.1994, the
Petitioner even after his retirement on 31.01.2006 was not
allowed to draw his pension and other pensionary benefits.
4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended
that the Petitioner though was ultimately acquitted in the
vigilance proceeding vide judgment dated 20.07.2018
under Annexure-11 in T.R Case No.108 of 2007, but in
spite of being acquitted in the vigilance proceeding, when
the Petitioner was not released with his pension and other
pensionary benefits, the present writ petition was filed with
the prayer as indicated hereinabove.
4.3. It is contended that since the Petitioner has been
acquitted in the vigilance proceeding, there is no occasion
on the part of the Opposite Parties in not releasing the
pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the
Petitioner. No disciplinary proceeding was also ever
initiated against the Petitioner till he retired from his
service on 31.01.2006 or even thereafter. The Petitioner
since has already been acquitted in the vigilance
proceeding, the Opposite Parties be directed to release the
pension and other pensionary benefits without any further
delay.
5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State on the other hand made his
submission basing on the counter filed by the Opposite
// 3 //
Party No.2. It is contended that even though the Petitioner
has been acquitted in the vigilance proceeding vide
judgment dated 20.07.2018, but seeking leave to file an
appeal against such order of acquittal, the State has
approached this Court in CRLLP No.45 of 2019.
Since an application seeking grant of leave to file an
appeal against the order of acquittal is pending before this
Court in the aforesaid CRLLP No.45 of 2019, it cannot be
held that the order of acquittal so passed against the
Petitioner has attained finality in the eye of law.
5.1. It is accordingly contended that unless the leave to
prefer an appeal is rejected by this Court, the Petitioner on
the ground that he has been acquitted in the vigilance
proceeding from the charges cannot be sanctioned with
the pension and other pensionary benefits.
6. In order to verify the veracity of the submission made
by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, this Court vide
order dated 31.03.2023 directed for listing of the present
matter along with the records of CRLLP No.45 of 2019.
This Court on verification finds that even though the
matter in CRLLP No.45 of 2019 was filed on 25.04.2019
with delay of around 188 days, but after filing of the
matter no step has been taken by the State authority till
date. Save and except filing the application on 25.04.2019,
no further action has been taken by the State-Authority
and in the meantime around four years is going to be
passed.
6.1. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and
taking into account the fact that the Petitioner has been
acquitted in the vigilance proceeding vide judgement dated
// 4 //
20.07.2018 under Annexure-11, merely on the ground that
an application seeking leave to file an appeal is pending
before this Court, the Opposite Parties cannot withhold the
sanction of pension and pensionary benefits in favour of
the Petitioner.
6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the Opposite
Party Nos. 2 and 3 to regularize the period of suspension
and take necessary steps for sanction of pension and
pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner. Taking into
account the age of the Petitioner at present, this Court
directs the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 to regularize the
period of suspension and sanction pension and other
pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioners within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner is permitted to
provide the certified copy of this order before the Opposite
Party No.2 immediately on its receipt and Opposite Party
No.2 is directed to act on the same.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
