Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Rath vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.16046 of 2025
Pradeep Kumar Rath ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
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:-
"Under the circumstances, the petitioner
most humbly and respectfully prays that the
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
direct the Opposite Parties to sanction and pay
the Petitioner his Full Pension, Gratuity, Leave
Encashment, commuted value of pension and
GIS etc. with 10% interest from the date it
became due till the payment is made, within a
stipulated period to be fixed by this Hon'ble
Court;
And further be pleased to pass any other
order/orders as deemed fit and proper."
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. 28.02.2025. 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 it appears that the Petitioner has already
approached the Opposite Party No.1 by submitting a
representation dated 22.05.2025 under Annexure-3 series.
He further contended that in the event no final decision
has been taken on the representation of the Petitioner
under Annexure-3, he will have no objection in the event
this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and
dispose of the representation of the Petitioner strictly 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
directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the
grievance of the Petitioner as involved in his
representation dated 22.05.2025 under Annexure-3 series
in accordance with law and keeping in view the ratio laid
down in the above noted judgments and dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of communication of a certified
copy of this order. 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
