Orissa High Court
Raja Kishore Ghadai vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... ... on 3 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.9207 of 2025
Raja Kishore Ghadai ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prasanta Kumar Mishra
-versus-
State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Smt. S. Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
03.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is prayed, therefore that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to;
i) Admit and allow the writ petition.
ii) Quash the impugned order/letter vide
No.34427/WR, dated 16.12.2024 under
Annexure-3 so far as it relates to sanction of
un-utilized leave salary and;
iii) This Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to direct the O.P.No.1 to sanction and
disburse un-utilized leave salary in favour of
the petitioner in terms of law decided in
W.P.(C) No.20808 of 2024 under Annexure-5
within a stipulated period of time.
iv) And further be pleased to pass such other
order (s), direction (s) as deem fit and proper
to the facts and circumstances of the case to
give complete relief to the petitioner,"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner has taken retirement from service w.e.f. 31.01.2024 on
attaining the age of superannuation. He further contended that after
his retirement the Opposite Party No.2, vide letter dated 23.04.2024,
has sent a proposal to the Opposite Party No.1 for sanction of
unutilized leave salary in favour of the Petitioner. However, the
Opposite Party No.1, vide order dated 16.12.2024 under Annexure-3
to the writ petition, has refused to sanction the unutilized leave salary
in favour of the Petitioner on the ground of pendency of a vigilance
case and a disciplinary proceeding. Being aggrieved by such order
under Annexure-3, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the present writ petition.
5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
referring to the judgment of this Court in Chittaranjan Senapati v.
State of Odisha and Others in W.P.(C) No.20808 of 2024 decided on
06.03.2025, argued that the Opposite Party No.1 has committed an
illegality by rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner vide order dated
16.12.2024 under Annexure-3. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the matter requires
reconsideration in the light of law laid down by this Court in
Chittaranjan Senapati's case (supra).
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
she does not have any instruction in the matter. However, referring to
the order dated 16.12.2024 under Annexure-3, she contended that the
Opposite Parties have considered the case of the Petitioner and due to
pendency of the vigilance proceeding as well as the disciplinary
proceeding, the claim of the Petitioner for grant of unutilized leave
salary in his favour has been rejected. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Parties have
not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the present writ petition is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions and on a close
scrutiny of the documents annexed to the writ petition, it is observed
that the prayer of the Petitioner for grant of unutilized leave salary
has been rejected vide order dated 16.12.2024 under Annexure-3 on
the ground of pendency of vigilance case as well as a disciplinary
proceeding. The aforesaid rejection order has been passed by taking
into consideration the finance department OM No.7493 dated
26.03.2015. Further, on a perusal of the judgment passed by this
Court in Chittaranjan Senapati's case (supra), it appears that this
Court while considering an identical issue has also referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in State of
Odisha v. Nirmal Ch. Satapathy in W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2016,
wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to quash the O.M.
dated 26.03.2015. Finally, the writ petition filed by the above named
Chittaranjan Senapati was disposed of by quashing the impugned
order dated 06.08.2024, with a further direction to the Opposite
Parties to calculate the cash equivalent of unutilized leave salary as is
due and admissible to the Petitioner and to sanction and disburse the
same in favour of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. On
a careful examination of the above noted judgments, this Court is of
the view that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the
ratio laid down in Chittaranjan Senapati's case (supra). In such view
of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned
order dated 16.12.2024 under Annexure-3. Accordingly, the same is
hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite
Party No.1 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in light of the law
laid down by this Court in Chittaranjan Senapati's case (supra) as
well as Nirmal Ch. Satapathy's case (supra) within a period of eight
weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this
order.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 04-Apr-2025 16:21:30
