Santoshini Satpathy vs State Of Odisha & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 10428 Ori

Orissa High Court

Santoshini Satpathy vs State Of Odisha & Others on 24 June, 2024

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                        W.P.(C) No.35710 of 2021
        Santoshini Satpathy
                                          ....                       Petitioner
                                                       Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
                               -versus-
        State of Odisha & Others
                                  ....                     Opposite Parties
                                                       Mr. S. S. Pradhan, AGA

                              CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                         ORDER

Order No.                              24.06.2024
      13. 1.     This   matter    is    taken   up    through      Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Even though the present Writ Petition was originally filed challenging the competency of Opposite Party No.3 to initiate the proceeding vide Memorandum dtd.22.10.2021 under Annexure-12, but in course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since during pendency of the proceeding, Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation having retired from service on 31.12.2022, the proceeding so initiated under Annexure-12 cannot continue in view of the decision of this Court so passed vide judgment dtd.23.11.2023 in the case of Karunakar Mallick vs. State of Odisha & Others. This Court in Para-6 & 6.1 of the said decision has held as follows:-

// 2 //

"6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials produced before this Court and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the proceeding against the Petitioner since could not be completed prior to his superannuation which fell due on 31.01.2021, the proceeding cannot continue in absence of any provision to that effect either under the 1974 Rules or under the 1981 Rules.

6.1. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra), this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding dtd.19.01.2013 so initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-13. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take effective steps for sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order".

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4 does not dispute the fact that the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-12 was never disposed of prior to the date of superannuation of the Petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of Karunakar Mallick as cited (supra) is also of the view that the proceeding since was not disposed of by the time Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2022, the same cannot continue in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.22.10.2021 under

// 3 //

Annexure-12 by Opposite Party No.3 and quash the same accordingly.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK