Orissa High Court
Madhusudan Patra vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 2 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.15201 of 2025
Madhusudan Patra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Samapika Mishra
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
02.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid 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 the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"In the light of the above circumstances, it is,
therefore, prayed before this Hon'ble Court that
it may graciously be pleased to admit the writ
petition issue a Rule NISI in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ /
writs, call for the records, calling upon the
Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the
Petitioner in not granted final Pension pending
disposal of the departmental as well as judicial
proceedings;
And in the event the Opp. Parties fail to show
cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule be
made absolute, and consequently final pension be
released in favour of the Petitioner. in the
interest of justice;
And pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
while the Petitioner was working as Forest Ranger he was entangled
in a vigilance case on 30.09.2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner was
placed under suspension and a department proceeding initiated
against the Petitioner vide Memorandum No.4252 dated 08.03.2011.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
subsequently the Petitioner was reinstated in service. Finally, the
Petitioner has superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.04.2024. The
grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although
he has retired from service, he is only getting the provisional pension
and no other service dues including retirement benefits and
pensionary benefits have been extended in favour of the Petitioner. In
the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Hira Lal v. State
of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2020 (SC) 1027 as well as of this
Court by a Coordinate Bench in Bijaya Krishna Panigrahi v. State of
Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.30151 of 2020 disposed of vide
judgment dated 08.11.2024. She further contended that the Petitioner
has already approached this Court by filing a detailed representation
on 22.07.2024 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition, however, no
decision has been taken by the Opposite Party No.1. Being aggrieved
by such inaction by the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
since the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.1, and in
the event any such representation is pending before the Opposite
Party No.1, she will have no objection in the event this Court directs
the Opposite Party No.1 to take a lawful decision on the
representation of the Petitioner dated 22.07.2024 in accordance with
law within a stipulated period of time.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their
submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the
writ petition, further keeping in view the ratio laid down in the
judgments referred hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose
of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of
the Petitioner dated 22.07.2024 under Annexure-4 by taking into
consideration the judgments referred to hereinabove, within a period
of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of
today's order. The Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to dispose of
the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and
reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
