Orissa High Court
Gurucharan Pani vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 16 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.30463 of 2024
Gurucharan Pani ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Amit Kumar Nath
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) The Director, Panchayatraj And Represented By Adv. -
Drinking Water Department Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C.
3) The Collector, Dhenkanal
4) The B.d.o., Odapada
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.04.2025
02. 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. Perused the writ
application as well as documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that in view of the
facts and circumstances as stated above, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to admit the Writ Petition, issue
notice to the 0pp. Parties and upon hearing, kindly
consider to release of gratuity and final pension and all
other service benefits of the petitioner along with interest
@ 18% as per delay is attributed to the 0pp. Parties /
authorities within stipulated time;
And pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as would be
deemed fit and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended
that the petitioner initially joined as VLW in Kaniha Block on
19.02.1986. Finally after working for almost a few decades the
petitioner has finally retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture contended that
while the petitioner was in service he was entangled in a
vigilance case bearing Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 dated
29.04.2022 which corresponds to VGR Case No.7 of 2022
pending before the learned Special Judge, Dhenkanal. In the
aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that although the aforesaid vigilance case was initiated
after retirement of the petitioner from service, however the
petitioner has not been paid his retiral dues as well as the
pensionary benefits, gratuity etc. as is due and admissible to the
petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the opposite
parties the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, on the
basis of instruction received from the B.D.O., Odapada dated
01.03.2025, contended that the petitioner has been sanctioned
his provisional pension vide office order dated 18.03.2021 and
he has been drawing provisional pension. She further contended
that the final GPF application of the petitioner has been sent to
the office of the Accountant General (A&E) vide office letter
No.1790 dated 01.07.2021 and that the petitioner has already
been paid his GPF dues. So far the unutilised leave salary of the
petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the same has been
sanctioned vide office order dated 25.06.2021 and in the
meantime the same has also been disbursed in favour of the
petitioner vide bill dated 29.06.2021. The refund of the GIS has
also been sanctioned vide office order dated 13.12.2021.
6. With regard to the final pension, learned counsel for the
State, further referring to the instruction, contended that the
same has been sent to the Director of Panchayatraj & Drinking
Water Department, Govt. of Odisha vide office dated
15.12.2022. However, the same has been returned by the
Government on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a
Vigilance P.S. Case which has been described hereinabove. In
such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted
that due to involvement of the petitioner in the vigilance case his
final pension has not been sanctioned in his favour. On such
grounds, learned counsel for the State further contended that
Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in the matter.
7. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner, by referring to a judgment of Division Bench of this
Court in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo and others vs. State of
Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.14718 of 2015 decided vide
judgment dated 06.05.2022 contended that since no charge
sheet has been filed and no cognizance has been taken in the
vigilance case, the petitioner is entitled to the final pensionary
benefits as provided under the O.C.S. Pension Rules, 1992. In
the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo's case (supra) the
division bench has come to a conclusion that on the date of
retirement no cognizance has been taken on the vigilance case,
as such it is deemed that no such proceeding is pending against
the petitioner, and accordingly the opposite parties were directed
to calculate and sanction pensionary benefits as is due and
admissible to the petitioner (Sushanta Chandra Sahoo).
Referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the
petitioner further contended that so far the present petitioner is
concerned he stands in a better footing since on the date of his
retirement the vigilance case was not even registered. Therefore,
there was no embargo in law to sanction the final pension in
favour of the petitioner.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful analysis of the legal position, this
Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by
the opposite parties in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Division Bench in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo's case.
Accordingly, the present writ application is being disposed of at
the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 i.e.
Director Panchayatiraj & Drinking Water Department, Govt. of
Odisha to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of final
pensionary of benefits by keeping in view the ratio laid down by
the division bench in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo's case within a
period of six weeks from the date of communication of a
certified copy of today's order. In the event it is found that no
vigilance case was pending against the petitioner on the date of
his retirement, necessary steps be taken for the sanction and
disbursal of the final pensionary benefits as is due and
admissible to the petitioner, provided there are no other legal
impediments to the same.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
