Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Behera vs ) Government Of Orissa on 17 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.16088 of 2025
Ramesh Chandra Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Santosh Kumar Dash
-versus-
1) Government of Orissa, Finance ..... Opposite Parties
Department, Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar, represented by its
Finance Secretary.
2) Commissioner of State Tax, Represented By Adv. -
Odisha, Cuttack. Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
17.06.2025
Order No.
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 petition as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the
Petitioner with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that your Lordships may graciously be
pleased to admit the Writ Petition and issue
Rule 'NISI' to the Opp. Parties, to show cause
as to why this writ application shall not be
allowed. Opp. parties shall not be directed to
release balance retirement dues of this
petitioner with accrued interest. If opp.
parties failed to show causes or show
insufficient cause, the writ application may
be allowed, calling for the records and after
hearing the parties to this writ petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue;
(i) Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ(s) directing the Opp.
Parties to release/sanction the
unutilised leave salary and balance
retirement amount due to the petitioner
with within a stipulated period of time.
(ii) Direct the Opp. Parties to pay interest
over the aforesaid unutilised leave
salary and balance amount not paid to
the petitioner yet @ 18% p.a. from the
date the same became due till their
payment.
And pass such other or further orders
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstance of the
case."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that although the Petitioner was entangled in a Vigilance
Case while he was serving as a Government servant,
however no charge sheet has been filed in the said case.
He further submitted that in the meantime the Petitioner
has retired form service on attaining the age of
superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2018. In course of his
argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further
referring to the judgment dated 04.01.2024 of this Court
in Kailash Chandra Das v. State of Odisha and others
bearing in W.P.(C) No.23326 of 2022 as well as the
judgment dated 06.05.2022 of the Division Bench of this
Court in State of Odisha and others v. Sushanta
Chandra Sahoo and others baring W.P.(C) No.14718 of
2015, contended that in the event no charge sheet has
been filed at the time of retirement of the Petitioner from
service, then pendency of the criminal case shall not stand
in the way of the Petitioner getting the retiral dues as well
as pensionary benefits due and admissible to him.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted that the Petitioner has not approached the
competent authority before approaching this Court. In
such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State
submitted that he will have no objection in the event this
Court directs the Petitioner to approach the competent
authority, i.e. Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed
representation taking therein all the grounds with a further
direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the
representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law
and within a stipulated period of time.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a
careful examination of the background facts of the present
case as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition,
further keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in
Kailash Chandra Das's case (supra) as well as Sushanta
Chandra Sahoo's case (supra), this Court deems it proper
to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by
granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh
representation taking therein all the grounds along with all
the supporting documents before the Opposite Party No.1
within two weeks from today and in the event such
representation is filed by the Petitioner within the time
stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed of
by the Opposite Party No.1 in accordance with law and
keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above noted
judgments within a period of two months from the date of
filing such representation. It is needless to mention here
that the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed
of by passing a speaking and reasoned order and such
order be communicated to the Petitioner as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within ten days from the date of
taking decision on such representation.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
writ petition stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
