Orissa High Court
Pitabas Mahakud vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18239 of 2025
Pitabas Mahakud ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Dhananjaya Mund
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
S.K. Parhi, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.07.2025
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 Standing Counsel 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:
"Under the facts and circumstances mentioned
above, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ
Petition, call for the records, issue notice to the Opp.
Parties and after hearing the parties, issue appropriate
writ(s) thereby setting aside the order of rejection dated
28.07.2023 passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 under
Annexure - 7;
And further direct the Opp. Parties to sanction
and disburse the final pension, un-utilized leave salary
and other financial benefits along with interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of entitlement in favour of the
petitioner within a stipulated period of time as fixed by
this Hon'ble Court;
And further pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that while the Petitioner was working as A.S.C.O. in the office of
the Opposite Party No.3, he was entangled in a vigilance case
bearing Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.23 of 2018. While the
aforesaid Vigilance Case was pending, the Petitioner
superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.03.2022. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner at this juncture emphatically submitted that
although the above noted vigilance case is pending since 2018,
however, the investigation has not been concluded and no final
charge sheet has been filed. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the pendency of the
vigilance case, where no charge sheet has been filed after such a
long time is not stand in the way of the Petitioner receiving his
service benefits.
5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble 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 submitted that mere
pendency of the vigilance case where the investigation has not
been concluded despite several years having elapsed in the
meantime, shall not stand in the way of the Petitioner in getting
his service benefits. He further contended that the provisions
contained in the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1962 shall also not apply
to the facts of the Petitioner's case.
6. In the context of the impugned rejection order dated
28.07.2023 under Annexure-7, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that while passing such order, the Opposite Party No.1
has not taken into consideration the judgment of this Court, as
has been referred to hereinabove. On such ground, learned
counsel for the Petitioner challenged the impugned rejection
order dated 28.07.2023 and submitted that the same is liable to
be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that while working as ASCO, the petitioner was entangled in the
vigilance case. Although he has retired in the meantime,
however, the Opposite Parties have withheld his retiral dues as
well as pensionary benefits. He further submitted that the prayer
of the Petitioner has been rejected by a speaking order dated
28.07.2023 under Annexure-7. Further, referring to the
provisions contained in the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1962, learned
counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Parties have
not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the
Petitioner. On such ground, learned counsel for the State
contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and
accordingly, the same should be dismissed at the threshold.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well
as on a close scrutiny of the order dated 28.07.2023 under
Annexure-7, this Court observed that the prayer of the Petitioner
has been rejected solely on the ground that the Petitioner was
entangled in a vigilance case, however, the Opposite Party No.1
has not examined the aspect as to whether the investigation has
been concluded and whether the cognizance has been taken in
the matter as is required under the law. This Court at this
juncture would like to refer to the judgment of this Court by a
Hon'ble Division Bench in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo's case
(supra) as well as this particular bench in Chiitaranjan
Senapati's case (supra) has categorically laid down the law
applicable in such factual background. On a close scrutiny of the
impugned order it appears that the Opposite Party No.1 has not
taken into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the
abovenoted judgments while rejecting the case of the petitioner.
Moreover, it is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that
till date no charge sheet has been filed, therefore, the
investigation is still open. In such view of the matter, this Court
has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned rejection order
dated 28.7.2023 under Annexure-7. Accordingly, the same is
hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the
Opposite Party No.1 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in
terms of the aforesaid two judgments and the grievance of the
Petitioner shall be redressed by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within a period of two months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner.
The final decision so taken be also communicated to the
Petitioner within a period of ten days thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 08-Jul-2025 19:08:03
