Orissa High Court
Union Of India vs Deepak Niranjan Nath on 23 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10640 of 2025
Union of India, New Delhi
and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Amitav Das,
Senior Panel Counsel
along with
Mrs. Sephalee Das,
Central Govt. Counsel
-versus-
Deepak Niranjan Nath
Pandit .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 23.06.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This writ petition has been filed by the Union of
India and others challenging the order dated 26.07.2024
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00067 of 2021 in
holding that since the opp. party- Deepak Niranjan Nath
Pandit, who was under suspension, was allowed to retire
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
without any objection and without initiation of the
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 18:12:48
departmental proceeding, the order of his suspension
automatically spends its force/becomes redundant/
ceased to exist, resultantly, entitling him to pay and
other allowances for the period of suspension as if spent
in duty and thus, the petitioners were directed to pay the
opp. party his salary and allowances w.e.f. his date of
suspension till his retirement minus subsistence
allowance already paid to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack has erroneously relied upon the decision
of Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi in O.A. No.3726 of
2013 (Surinder Kumar Gupta -Vrs.- UoI and others)
which was set aside by the Division Bench of Delhi High
Court passed in W.P.(C) No.11860 of 2015 i.e. Union of
India & another -Vrs.- S.K. Gupta vide order dated
03.06.2016, in which the Division Bench has been
pleased to hold that where a government servant,
against whom departmental or judicial proceedings have
been instituted before the date of his retirement, and
continue even after retirement, 1972 Rules and 1981
Rules puts a restriction on the commutation of full
pension, etc. and therefore, directed the pension has to
be re-worked and calculated on conclusion of the judicial
proceedings. The judgment has been annexed as
Annexure-7.
The factual scenario of the aforesaid case which
was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners
is different from the present case, inasmuch as till the
opp. party retired on 31.01.2022, no departmental
proceeding was initiated against him and it was only
initiated on 01.11.2024 as stated by the learned counsel
for the petitioners.
At this stage, Mr. A. Das, learned Senior Panel
Counsel seeks some time to file some citations on the
points that even if the opp. party who was under orders
of suspension and was allowed to retire on attaining the
age of superannuation without any objection and without
any initiation of departmental proceeding and thereafter,
the departmental proceeding is initiated against him by
the petitioners, the opp. party would not be entitled to
his salary and allowance w.e.f. his date of suspension as
if spent on duty and such payment would be subject to
the result of the departmental proceeding so initiated
after the superannuation.
List this matter in the week commencing from
07.07.2025.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Rajesh
