Karna Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1641 Ori

Orissa High Court

Karna Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 24 July, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 WP(C) No.20028 of 2025

            Karna Pradhan                           .....               Petitioner
                                                            Represented By Adv. -
                                                            Jayananda Jena

                                           -versus-
            State Of Odisha & Ors.                .....          Opposite Parties
                                                            Represented By Adv. -
                                                            D. Lenka, A.G.A.

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

24.07.2025 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing 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 therefore humbly prayed that your Lordship be pleased to admit the Writ Application, issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or shows insufficient cause, issue appropriate writ direction and order directing the Opposite Parties to pass appropriate Order for sanction and disbursing all retiral benefits such as final pension, gratuity, leave

salary, commutated value of pension etc;

Furthermore it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed disbursement of pensionary benefits from the date of the Petitioner's retirement, i.e. 31.03.2017 till the date of actual payment;

And pass such other Order and Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Jailor on 03.02.1981 under the administrative control of the Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Jailor w.e.f. 18.07.1987 and finally to the post of Superintendent of Jail w.e.f. 09.05.2013. While working as such, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2017.

5. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that although the Petitioner has retired from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017, however, his retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits have been illegally withheld by the Opposite Parties. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that before his retirement from service, the Petitioner was entangled in a vigilance case which was initiated for possessing asset disproportionate to his known sources of income. Accordingly, VGR Case No.114 of 2016 was registered which corresponds to Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 of 2016. On the basis of the aforesaid vigilance case, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the Petitioner vide memo dated 07.05.2018.

Admittedly, initiation of the departmental proceeding is after the retirement of the Petitioner from service.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that mere pendency of the vigilance proceeding as well as the departmental proceeding which are at its nascent stage shall not stand in the way of the Petitioner in getting the retiral dues as well as the pensionary benefits. He further contended that so far the disciplinary proceeding is concerned, the same was initiated after his retirement. Therefore, the same will not stand as a bar in terms of the Rule 7 (2) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. With regard to the vigilance proceeding, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that by the time the Petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017, no charge sheet was filed. Therefore, the question of taking cognizance does not arise. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner further referred to the letter dated 07.05.2025 under Annexure-9 of the S.P., Vigilance Directorate, Cuttack wherein it has been stated that the vigilance case against the Petitioner is still at the investigation stage.

7. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred 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 contended that the pendency of the aforesaid two proceedings shall not stand in the way of the Petitioner in getting the financial benefits as is due

and admissible to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the meantime, the Home Dept., Govt. of Odisha has issue a notification dated 22.08.2024 clarifying the position. He further contended that in the meantime, Rule 7 (2) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 has already been amended vide notification 15316 dated 19.05.2025 and a new sub rule has been added as Rule 7 (2) (f) which reads as follows:-

"(f) the provisions of the sub-rule shall not be applicable where allegations of misconduct are under investigation against a Government Servant or where departmental or judicial proceedings are contemplated against a Government Servant but have not actually been instituted or deemed to have been instituted in accordance with explanation given in this sub-rule till the date of retirement of the Government Servant. Regular pension and gratuity in such cases shall be paid to the Government Servant on his retirement."

Similarly, the office memorandum of the Finance Dept., Govt. of Odisha dtd.29.05.2025 provides at Sl. No.2 of the table in the following manner:-

2. Rule 7(2) The Explanation under this Provision has been Rule provides definition of inserted that, regular „departmental proceedings‟ pension, gratuity and and „Judicial Proceedings". other retirement benefits There is provision for can be sanctioned if sanction of provisional Magistrate has not taken pension in case of pendency cognizance on the charge of such proceedings and sheet filed in a vigilance withholding of final pension case.

and gratuity.

8. In view of the aforesaid provision, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is no legal bar in sanctioning and

disbursing the retiral dues as well as the final pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the letter dated 13.12.2024 under Annexure-11 to the writ application addressed to the Joint Secretary to Govt., Home (Jails) Department Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar. On a perusal of the said letter it appears that the A.I.G. of Prisons, Odisha, who happens to be the controlling authority of the present petitioner, has categorically recommended the case of the Petitioner to the Govt. in terms of the Home Dept. letter dated 22.08.2024 for release of his retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits. The Opposite Parties have not acted upon on such recommendation of the controlling authority of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction with regard to the subject matter of dispute in the present writ application, however, on a careful scrutiny of the averments as well as the documents annexed to the writ application, it appears that the Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by non- payment of his retiral dues as well as pension and pensionary benefits. He further contended that the Home Dept., Govt. of Odisha has already clarified the position and in the meantime the position of law has undergone a change by virtue of letter dated 22.08.2024 as well as subsequent amendment Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the case of the Petitioner be

examined in the light of the aforesaid amendment provision of Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Accordingly, he further contended that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the aforesaid letter/ notification and subsequent amendment to Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, then he will have no objection to the same.

10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of the factual background, further taking into consideration the legal position that has emerged from the subsequent development in the shape of the notification and amendment Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, this Court is of the view that on the basis of the admitted factual position, the Petitioner is entitled to retiral dues as well as the pension and pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to him. Such view of this Court gets support from the Notification dtd.22.08.2024, Notification dtd.19.05.2025 and Notification dtd.29.05.2025 as referred to in para-7 of this order. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ application. Accordingly, the writ application is hereby allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to calculate, sanction and disburse the financial benefits towards the retiral dues as well as the pension and pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner within a period of two months from today. It is further directed that in the event the aforesaid dues are not paid within the aforesaid time stipulation, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the same with interest @ of 12% from today till the actual payment is made to the Petitioner.

11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

12. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil

Designation: Junior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Jul-2025 16:22:52