Orissa High Court
Jayanta Kumar Nayak vs The Govt. Of Odisha & Others on 13 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21524 of 2023
Jayanta Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Mund, Advocate
-versus-
The Govt. of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. N.K. Praharaj, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 13.07.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. H.K. Mund, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner with
the following prayer:-
"In the premises aforesaid, this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the
Opposite Parties to show cause as to why an
appropriate writ/direction will not be issued for the
following:-
i) ordering the O.Ps. to treat the period of his
suspension as on duty and pay him full salary with all
corresponding revision as per revised scale of pay
Rules.
ii) The Opposite Parties be directed to sanction
and disburse the pension, gratuity and other retiral
benefits from 01.05.2008.
Or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
// 2 //
direction/directions as may be deemed necessary for the
interest of justice. And in the event the O.Ps. fail to
show-cause or show insufficient cause the rule may be
issued by issuing the necessary/writ(s)/direction(s) and
for this the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed
expedient in the circumstances of the case."
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was working as Assistant Consolidation Officer. While
working as such, the Petitioner was entangled in the vigilance case
bearing C.T.R. No.7 of 2004. Thereafter, the Petitioner was placed
under suspension and a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against
him. While the Petitioner was continuing under suspension on attaining
the age of superannuation the Petitioner has retired from service w.e.f.
30.04.2008. It is further contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the Petitioner is getting provision pension w.e.f. 01.05.2008.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that
in the vigilance case the Petitioner faced the trial vide judgment dated
29.05.2012 passed in C.T.R. Case No.07 of 2004. The Petitioner was
acquitted of all charges made against him in the said criminal case.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a representation along with a copy of the
trial court judgment before the Opposite Party No.2 on 25.07.2012.
Further, on perusal of the writ application it appears that the State has
filed a leave to appeal bearing CRLLP No.40 of 2014 since 2014.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the
leave application has been filed, however, no leave has been granted as
of now. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the authorities the
Petitioner has approached this Court for regularization of service and
payment of all retiral benefits including the final pension, gratuity etc.
6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand,
submitted that although the Petitioner has acquitted in the vigilance
case, however, the State has preferred a leave to appeal as referred to
// 3 //
hereinabove. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Addl.
Government Advocate awaiting in the final decision in the aforesaid
leave application before this Court the claim of the Petitioner has not
been processed. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned Addl.
Government Advocate that the present writ application is premature.
7. In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that he was vehemently the leave application is
not stand in the way granting the benefits the Petitioner as he has
already been acquitted for over a decade. Further, referring to the
order of this Court in Khitish Chandra Patra Vs. State of Odisha &
Ors. in W.P.(C) No.213 of 2020 disposed of on 06.04.2023. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the facts of that case are
identical to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that in
the above noted case, this Court while disposing of the writ
application by directing the Opposite Parties to regularize the period
of suspension of the Petitioner and take necessary steps for sanction
pension and other pensionary benefits in favor of the Petitioner.
8. Considering the submission made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of
the background facts of the present case as well as the documents
placed on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
application at the stage of admission by directing the Petitioner is
directed to approach the Member Board of Revenue, Odisha,
Cuttack-Opposite Party No.2 by filing a fresh representation taking
therein all the grounds along with a copy of the order passed in
W.P.(C) No.213 of 2020 within a period of three weeks from today.
In the event, such a representation is filed the same shall be
considered strictly in accordance with law and keeping in view the
order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Khitish Chandra
// 4 //
Patra's case and take a decision in accordance with law within a
period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation along
with the certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be also
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 14-Jul-2023 12:17:19
