Orissa High Court
Prasanta Kumar Sahu vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 12 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.1914 of 2025
Prasanta Kumar Sahu ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Rabindra Kumar Patnaik
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Principal Chief Conservator Of Represented By Adv. -
Forests,bbsr Mr.M.R.Mohanty,ASC
3) D.f.o.,ghumsur South
Division,bhanjanagar
4) Accountant General( A And E) ,bbsr
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 12.02.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical 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 documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ application has been filed by the
petitioner with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties,
particularly Opposite Party No.1, to release the pension,
gratuity (DCRG) amount and unutilised leave salary benefits
subject to the outcome of the vigilance proceeding vide
Berhampur Vigilance Case No.63 of 2017, within a stipulated
period of time.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset
contended that while the petitioner was working as Forest
Range Officer, Buguda Range under the administrative control
of the D.F.O., Ghumusar South Division, Bhanjanagar, he
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.10.2019. He further submitted that after his retirement while
the provisional pension and G.P.F. benefits were released in
his favour, but the gratuity amount and unutilised leave salary
have not been released on the ground of pendency of the
Vigilance Proceeding against the Petitioner, vide Berhampur
Vigilance P.S.Case No.63 of 2017, pending in the Court of the
learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur. He also
contended that although the Petitioner has been retired from
service on 31.10.2019, no Charge Sheet has been filed and no
cognizance has been taken and also no summons have been
issued against the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, the
learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of
this Court by a Division Bench in W.A.No.2444 of 2024
(Sushant Kumar Sahu vs. State of Odisha) arising out of
W.P.(C) No.20992 of 2023 decided on 04.09.2024. He also
relied upon the clarification of Home Department dated
22.08.2024 under Annexure-3 series to the writ application. By
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court as well as the clarification of the Home Department,
learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that at the
time of his retirement from service, neither any disciplinary
proceeding was pending against him nor was any charge
sheet filed against him in the judicial proceeding in shape of
the vigilance case. Therefore, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that by applying the judgment of this
Court in Sushanta Kumar Sahoo's case (supra) as well as
the resolution of the Home Department, under Annexure-3
series, the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits. Being
aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Party No.3, the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
application.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
contended that he has not received any instruction from the
Opposite Parties. However, he further contended that on
perusal of the writ application it appears that the petitioner has
approached the Opposite party No.3 by filing the
representation on 28.10.2024 under Annexure-3 series. He
further contended that in the event the representation, as
alleged by the petitioner, has in fact been filed and no decision
has been taken thereon, he will have no objection in the event
this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider and
dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance
with law and within a stipulated period of time.
6. Considering such submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful
examination of the backgrounds facts as well as in materials
placed before this Court for consideration, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the
Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the
petitioner in the light of the letter dated 22.08.2024 under
Annexure-3 series as well as the judgment of this Court in
Sushant Sahoo's Case and dispose of the same within a
period of eight weeks from date of communication of a certified
copy of today's order by the petitioner, by passing a speaking
and reasoned order and the final order passed thereon be
communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks
from the date of taking such decision.
7. It is further directed that while considering the
representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 series dated
28.10.2024, the Opposite Party No.3 shall verify as to whether
any proceeding in the shape of a Disciplinary Proceeding or
judicial proceeding is pending against the Petitioner at the time
of his retirement. In the event it is found that no Disciplinary
Proceeding is pending on the date of retirement of the
Petitioner from service and in the Vigilance case cognizance
was not taken before retirement of the Petitioner from service,
then the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the case
of the Petitioner by applying the ratio of the judgment in the
case of Susant Sahoo's case as well as the clarificatory letter
dated 22.08.2024.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
RKS
Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa
