[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Mallik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 16 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C )No.2829 of 2024
Prafulla Kumar Mallik .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Balabantaray,
Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order ORDER
No. 16.12.2025
2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned counsel has entered
appearance by filing his vakalatnama in Court. The same be
kept on record.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging
order dt.30.10.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under
Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to
get the benefit of unutilised leave salary as due and
admissible was rejected on the ground of pendency of a
Vigilance Proceeding against the Petitioner.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that the Vigilance Proceeding in the meantime has
been disposed of by holding the Petitioner not guilty of the
// 2 //
charges and Petitioner has been acquitted in the said
proceeding. Copy of the judgment passed by the learned
Special Judge (Vigilance) Cuttack in T.R. Case No.28 of 2012
arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2010 so
produced in Court be kept on record.
4.2. Learned counsel accordingly contended that since
Petitioner has been acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding and
that is the only reason of rejection, with regard to his
rejecting his claim to get the benefit of unutilised salary,
Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 be directed to release the unutilised
leave salary in favour of the Petitioner.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
contended that if Petitioner has been acquitted in the
Vigilance Proceeding, let him make a fresh application
before Opp. Party No.1 for re-consideration of his decision.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and considering the submission made, it is found that claim
of the Petitioner to get the benefit of unutilised salary was
rejected only on the ground that a Vigilance Proceeding is
pending against the Petitioner vide the impugned order
under Anexure-10. Since Petitioner has already been
acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding vide judgment
dt.26.03.2025 in TR Case No.28 of 2012 arising out of
Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2010, it is the view of
this Court that the ground on which Petitioner's claim was
rejected is no more sustainable.
6.1. In view of the same, this Court while quashing the
impugned order dt.30.10.2023 so issued under Annexure-10,
// 3 //
directs Opp. Party No.1 to pass a fresh order in accordance
with law for release of unutilised leave salary in favour of the
Petitioner. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this
order along with the order of acquittal passed in the Vigilance
Proceeding before Opp. Party No.1 for compliance. Such an
order be passed within a period of 6(six) weeks form the date of
receipt of this order.
6.2. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authenticaton of order
Date: 19-Dec-2025 16:02:04
