Orissa High Court
Jugal Kishore Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others on 3 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19386 of 2023
Jugal Kishore Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr.Niranjan Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.Saswat Das, A.G.A.
Mr.S.KPatra, Standing Counsel
for A.G.Odisha
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Order No. ORDER
03.07.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.S.K.Patra, learned
Standing Counsel for A.G.Odisha as well as learned Additional
Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following
prayer:
" The Petitioner, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble
Court would graciously be pleased to admit the Writ
Petition, issue Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus
and/or any other writ(s) as deem fit and proper calling upon
the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the letter No.SAI-
9/File-ld-20820084473/3-4/2022-23/95 dated 17.05.2022 of
// 2 //
the Sr. Account Officer, Odisha in the Office of the
Accountant genera (A&E), Odisha Bhubaneswar under
annexure-4 shall not be quashed and as to why they shall not
be directed to release and pay the gratuity and commuted
value of pension to the Petitioner within a stipulated period
and alternatively why the Opposite Party No.2 shall not be
directed to take a decision of the representation of the
Petitioner vide Annexure-5.
And if the Opp.Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute;
And/or pass any other writ/writs, order/orders the
Hon'ble Court deed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case;"
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
although the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age
of superannuation with effect from 31.05.2019, his retiral dues as
well as gratuity and pensionary benefit have not been given. It is also
contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the year
2013 the Petitioner was entangled in a Vigilance case, however, till
date no final Charge Sheet has been filed in the said Vigilance case.
Referring to the judgment of this Court rendered by the Division
Bench, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since there is
no Charge Sheet on the date of retirement, it will be construed that
there is no case. Accordingly, the authority should have calculated,
sanctioned and disbursed the amount which the Petitioner is lawfully
entitled to. Several years have been passed in the meantime and
Charge Sheet has not been filed and the authorities have not released
the final amount to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
also contended that the Petitioner had approached the authority by
filing a representation under Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition and the
same is stated to be pending before Opposite Party No.2. Referring to
letter dated 17.05.2022 under Annexure-4 issued by the Accountant
General, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
// 3 //
proposal for grant of pensionary benefit was returned by the Office of
the Accountant General on the ground that two judicial proceedings
have been pending against the Petitioner. Therefore in view of Rule-
66(2) of OCS (Pension) Rule 1992 the Petitioner is not entitled to
the benefit till conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceeding.
Fuehrer, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
there is no Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner and
further although the Petitioner is involved in a vigilance case, no
Charge Sheet against the Petitioner has been filed. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the judicial proceeding is pending against the
Petitioner until and unless Charge sheet is filed against the Petitioner.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand
contended that since the Petitioner has already approached the
Opposite Party No.2 by filing a representation dated 05.12.2022
under Annexure-5 and the same is stated to be pending before
Opposite Party No.2, he has no objection in the event the Opposite
Party No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner
and dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background
facts of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite
Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated
05.12.2022
under Annexure-5 within a period of two months from
the date of communication of the order. It is further directed that the
Opposite Party No.2 shall take into consideration the judgment of
this Court, which will be relied upon by the Petitioner along with the
certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be communicated
to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
// 4 //
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH
Designation: Ex-A.R.-cum-Sr. Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 04-Jul-2023 10:49:22
