Orissa High Court
Asit Ranjan Choudhury vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 18 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.14312 of 2025
Asit Ranjan Choudhury ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Sailesh Das
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Secy, Dept. Of Water Resources Represented By Adv. -
3) Accountant General Mr. C.Mohanty, A.S.C.
Mr. S.K.Patra, Standing
Counsel for A.G.,
Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 18.06.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S.K.Patra,
learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.3. Perused
the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"The petitioner therefore prays that in view of the facts
and circumstances stated above this Hon'ble Court
may be graciously pleased to admit this writ
application and may be graciously pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties, more
particularly the opposite parties 1 and 3 to sanction
and release the regular pension of the petitioner, so
also the other retiral dues including death cum
retirement gratuity and commuted value of pension at
an early date.
And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant Interest on
the arrear differential retiral dues of the petitioner
since the same has not been paid to the petitioner, for
no fault of the petitioner
Or pass such other writ(s), direction(s), order(s) that
this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper in the present
facts and circumstances."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended
that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive
Engineer, he was entangled in a vigilance case bearing T.R.
No.72 of 2012 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge
Vigilance, Cuttack. While the trial was on-going the petitioner
on attaining the age of superannuation has retired from service
on 31.03.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that although the vigilance case was initiated in the
year 2012, however the same is still continuing despite expiry of
more than a decades time in the meantime. He further contended
that due to pendency of the aforesaid vigilance proceeding the
petitioner is deprived of his pensionary benefits as well as retiral
dues. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties,
the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
writ application for a direction to the Opposite Parties to release
the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner.
5. In course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner
referring to the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in
Bijaya Krishna Panigarhi vs. State of Odisha & Ors. in
W.P.(C) No.30151 of 2020 as well as in a similar matter which
was disposed of by a common judgment dated 08.11.2024,
contended that the learned coordinate bench has come to a
conclusion that long pendency of the vigilance proceeding shall
not stand in the way of the Opposite Parties to sanction and
disburse the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible in
favour of the charged government employee. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
Opposite Parties be directed to sanction and disburse the
pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no instruction in the matter, however on a
careful examination of the pleadings made in the writ
application it appears that the petitioner was entangled in a
vigilance case wherein the trial is still going on. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the State referring to the
provision contained in Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 contended
that there is a clear embargo in sanctioning and disbursing such
pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the
present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the
same should be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background
facts as well as documents annexed to the writ application,
further keeping in view the ratio laid down the judgment in the
Coordinate bench in Bijaya Krishna Panigarhi'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
approach the Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks from today.
In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the
representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law
and keeping in view the law laid down in Bijaya Krishna
Panigarhi's case (supra) and dispose of the representation of
the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within
eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy
of today's order. The final decision so taken be communicated
to the petitioner within ten days thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
