Orissa High Court
Ranjan Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11365 of 2024
Ranjan Kumar Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. K.C. Sahu
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Debasish Nayak,
A.G.A.
Mr. S.K. Patra,
Standing Counsel for the
O.P. No.5-Principal A.G.
(A&E), Odisha,
Bhubaneswar
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.05.2024
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties and learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the Opposite Party No.5-Princial Accountant General (A&E),
Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Perused the writ petition as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the following prayers:-
"In view of the facts and submissions
mentioned above the petitioner prays for the
following relief(s):-
(i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit &
allow the writ petition.
(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this
writ petition by further directing the Opp.
Parties to sanction & disburse the GIS,
unutilized leave salary, Gratuity, Final
Pension etc. as due & admissible in favour
of the petitioner keeping in view of the
judgment "State of Odisha & Others -Vs.-
Sushant Chandra Sahoo & Others" reported
in 2022 (Suppl.) OLR 44 so also keeping in
view of the similar order at Annexure-9 & 10
so also the decision of their lordships of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of
Jharkhand & Others -Vs.- Jitendra Ku.
Srivastav & another reported in (2013) 12
SCC-210 within a time bound period for the
interest of justice.
(iii) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass
any order(s)/direction(s) as deem fit and
proper for the interest of justice."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that while the Petitioner was continuing in
service, a departmental proceeding was initiated against
him. He was also entangled in a vigilance case. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
departmental proceeding culminated in acquittal of the
Petitioner from all charges before his retirement. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
Petitioner in the meantime has retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2021
after serving for about 35 years. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that the disciplinary
proceeding which was initiated against the present
Petitioner remain pending at the time of retirement of the
present Petitioner. He further contended that the charge
sheet was filed only on 06.04.2022, i.e. much after the
retirement of the Petitioner. He further contended that till
date no cognizance has been taken. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Division of this Court in State of
Odisha & Others -Vs.- Sushant Chandra Sahoo &
Others reported in 2022 (Suppl.) OLR 44. He further
contended that although the Petitioner is entitled to
unutilized leave salary and other service benefits, even
during the pendency of the proceeding the Opposite
Parties have not released such service benefits to the
Petitioner. In the said context, he also referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Jharkhand & Others -Vs.- Jitendra Ku. Srivastav &
another reported in (2013) 12 SCC-210.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other
hand, contended that at the time of retirement of the
present Petitioner, a criminal case was pending against
the present Petitioner. Therefore, the authorities have not
calculated the retiral dues as well as the pensionery
benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. In such
view of the matter, learned Additional Government
Advocate submitted that the Opposite Parties have not
committed any illegality in not sanctioning and
disbursing the retiral benefits and pensionary benefits as
is due and admissible to the Petitioner. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the
same should be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for
the respective parties and on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as the materials on record and
taking into consideration the limited nature of grievance,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition
at the state of admission by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Parties by filing a
fresh representation along with a copy of the judgment in
Sushant Chandra Sahoo's case (supra) within a period
of three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the
Opposite Parties shall do well to consider the case of the
Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in Sushant Chandra
Sahoo's case (supra). It is further directed that in the
event the Opposite Parties comes to a conclusion that the
case of the Petitioner is covered by the judgment in
Sushant Chandra Sahoo's case (supra) as well as in the
case of Jitendra Ku. Srivastav referred to hereinabove,
the Opposite Parties shall do well to calculate, sanction
and disburse the retirement benefits as well as the
pensionary benefits and other benefits as has been
claimed by the Petitioner within a period of six weeks
from the date of taking such decision. Any decision taken
by the Opposite Parties be also communicated to the
Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of
taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
writ petition is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
