Orissa High Court
Prasanta Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 10 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10066 of 2025
Prasanta Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Krishna Chandra Sahu
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
A. Pati, A.S.C.
S.K.Patra, Standing
Counsel for A.G. (A&E),
Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
10.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties and
Mr.S.K.Patra, learned Standing Counsel for the A.G. (A&E), Odisha.
Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"In view of the facts & 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 quash
the impugned orders dtd.10.12.2024 & order dtd.
18.12.2024 under Annexure-15 & 16 with further
directing the Opp. parties to sanction and disburse the
gratuity, leave salary amounts and other pensionary
benefits as due & admissible in favour of the petitioner
keeping in view of the order under Annexure-8, 9 as
well as resolution dtd.22.08.2024 under Annexure-10
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 deems fit and proper for the interest
of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Agriculture Officer
on 27.08.1984. While continuing as such, on 01.07.2005, he was
promoted to the rank of Asst. Agriculture Officer. He further
contended that while the Petitioner was continuing as such, an F.I.R.
was lodged against the present petitioner along with other co-accused
persons by the Vigilance Dept. and the same was registered as a
Vigilance P.S. Case No.26 dtd.30.06.2013.
5. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner was given further
promotion to the rank of District Agriculture Officer on 18.06.2016.
In the year 2016, a charge memo bearing no.17029 dtd.17.10.2016
was served on the Petitioner initiating a Disciplinary Proceeding
against him. While both the vigilance case as well as the disciplinary
proceeding were pending, the Petitioner was given further promotion
to the rank of Deputy Director of Agriculture on 16.08.2018. He
further contended that a D.P.C. meeting was convened on 01.12.2019
to consider the case of eligible candidates for promotion to the rank
of Deputy Director of Agriculture. Pursuant to the aforesaid D.P.C.
the petitioner was reverted to the post of District Agriculture Officer
w.e.f. 01.12.2019. While this was the position, the investigation in
the vigilance case was completed and a charge sheet was filed on
31.03.2020 before the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar implicating the Petitioner in the alleged crime. In the
meantime, the Disciplinary Proceeding was finalized vide office
order no.14329 dtd.29.07.2021 imposing a minor penalty on the
Petitioner. Subsequently, another disciplinary proceeding was
initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum no.14333
dtd.29.07.2021. Finally, the Petitioner took retirement from service
w.e.f. 31.08.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further contended that after retirement from service although the
Petitioner has been extended with the benefit of provisional pension
as sanctioned by the Opposite Party No.2, however, he has not been
paid his retiral dues as well as other pensionary benefits due and
admissible to him. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Odisha and
others v. Sushanta Chandra Sahoo and others reported in 2022
(Supp.) OLR-447 and the judgment of this Court in the case of
Chiitaranjan Senapati v. State of Odisha and another in W.P.(C)
No.20808 of 2024 vide judgment dated 06.03.2025 and other similar
judgments, contended that since no cognizance was taken in the
criminal case even though the Disciplinary Proceeding was pending
on the date of the retirement of the Petitioner (which was
subsequently finalized after the retirement of the Petitioner), there is
no embargo in law to consider the case of the Petitioner for grant of
retiral and pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the
Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the relevant
rules of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as the circular of the
State Government (under Annexure-10) vide Home Department
Resolution No.30339 dtd.22.08.2024. In the aforesaid context,
learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that on a careful
analysis of the legal position it can be safely concluded that there is
no embargo in law in granting such benefits in favour of the
Petitioner. He further submitted that in the pending vigilance case,
cognizance was taken on 07.02.2023 under Annexure-4 to the writ
application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that since no cognizance was taken in
the pending vigilance case at the time of retirement of the present
petitioner i.e. on 31.08.2021, there is no bar in considering the case
of the Petitioner for grant of retiral dues as well as pensionary
benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
although he has no instruction in the matter, however, it appears that
the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties by filing a
representation on 19.12.2024 under Annexure-17 to the writ
application. He further contended that in the meantime the Opposite
Parties have already taken a decision under Annexure-15 and 16
rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for grant of financial benefits as
has been claimed by the Petitioner. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the State contended that in the event the
Petitioner thinks that his grievance has not been considered
appropriately by referring to the legal provisions, it is open to him to
approach the Opposite Parties first for redressal of his grievance in
accordance with law.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in
view the nature of the grievance involved in the writ application and
on a careful analysis of the legal provisions applicable to the
Petitioner's case, this Court observes that the case of the Petitioner in
the present writ application is confined to grant of retiral as well as
pensionary benefits to the Petitioner upon attaining the age of
superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2021. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are
required to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the
provisions contained in rule as well as the judgments referred to
hereinabove. Further, on a perusal of the impugned orders under
Annexures-15 and 16, this Court is of the view that the impugned
orders are not reasoned and speaking orders since they have not
analysed the provisions of law applicable to the facts of Petitioner's
case. The impugned orders under Annexures-15 and 16 only convey
the final decision of the Opposite Parting in rejecting the claim of the
Petitioner.
9. On a careful analysis of the legal provisions, further keeping in
view the judgments referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the view
that the case of the Petitioner requires further examination by the
Opposite Parties by keeping in view the judgments referred to
hereinabove as well as the circulars of the State Government. In such
view of the matter, the present writ application is being disposed of
by setting aside the impugned orders under Annexures-15 and 16
with a further direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of
the Petitioner afresh. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to
approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation
taking therein all the grounds along with copies of the relevant
documents and the judgments relied upon in support of his contention
as well as the circulars of the State Government along with a certified
copy of today's order within a period of two weeks from today. In
such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider
the case of the Petitioner and dispose of the representation of the
Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period
of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of
today's order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such a decision.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 30-Apr-2025 11:10:22
