Upendra Kumar Hati vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 4904 Ori

Orissa High Court

Upendra Kumar Hati vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 12 March, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    WP(C) No.32235 of 2024

            Upendra Kumar Hati                        .....                   Petitioner
                                                                  Represented By Adv. -
                                                                  Krishna Chandra Sahu


                                               -versus-

            1) State Of Odisha                            .....       Opposite Parties
            2) Director, Health Intelligence And                  Represented By Adv. -
            Vital Statistics, Odisha                              Mr. P. P. Behera, Asc
            3) Principal Accountant General (a
            And E) , Bbsr                                         Ms.Siva Mohanty,ASC



                                   CORAM:
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                 MOHAPATRA

                                              ORDER

12.03.2025

Order No.

04. 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-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:

"In view of the facts and submissions mentioned in Para-(6) above the Petitioner prays for the

following relief(s) :-

i) The Hon'ble High Court be pleased to admit and allow the Writ Petition.

ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memo No.1258 dated 11.07.2024 under Annexure-4 by further declaring the very initiation of the said proceeding as illegal and void ab-initio in view of the provisions of Rule-7 (2)(b)(i),(ii),(C) & Explanation-(a) of the O.C.S.(Pension) Rules, 1992 with further directing the Opp.Parties for sanction and disbursement of the post retirement benefits as gratuity, commuted value of pension, final pension etc. as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner along with the statutory interest therein within a time bound period for the interest of justice.

iii) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any order(s)/direction(s) as deems fit and proper for the interest of justice."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Vital Statistic Clerk on 23.08.1983. After serving for about 38 years he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Vital Statistic Officer on 01.07. 2021. Thereafter on 01.03.2024 the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Vital Statistic Officer. He further contended that while continuing as Vital Statistical Officer, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.04.2024. After retirement of the Petitioner, although the Petitioner is entitled to his pensionary benefit, he submitted pension papers on 03.05.2024 in prescribed format along with an application for

commuted value of pension and retirement gratuity, however the same has not been duly considered by the authority as of now. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that on perusal of the service records of the Petitioner, it is found that the Disciplinary Proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner vide Memo No.1258 dated 11.07.2024 issued by the Opposite Party No.2. Since it is noted that the Disciplinary Proceeding is pending against the Petitioner, his claim for final pensionary benefit has not been considered and disbursed in his favour. He further contended that although provisional pension was sanctioned and released in favour of the Petitioner vide order No.12472 dated 30.04.2024. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner has submitted his written statement of defence on 24.07.2022. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that the prayer made in the Writ Petition is premature and accordingly, the Writ Petition be dismissed as the same is devoid of merit.

6. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of the learned Additional Standing Counsel,, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Proceeding which was initiated vide Memo No.12472 dated 30.04.2024 is void ab initio and the same is for the charges for the period 1975 to 2005. He further contended that the aforesaid proceeding has

been initiated after the retirement of the Petitioner from service with effect from 30.04.2024. In the aforesaid context, the learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment of this Court in State of Odisha & others vs. Sushant Ch. Sahoo & others decided on 06.05.2022 in W.P.(C) No.14718 of 2015 contended that since no proceeding was pending on the date of retirement of the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties have no legal sanction or authority to withhold the final pensionary benefit of the Petitioner. Similarly, he also refers the judgment of the of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suchismita Mishra vs. High Court of Orissa & Ors decided in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1042 of 2021 decided on 17.05.2023. Further referring to the judgment in Suchismita Mishra's case (supra), learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the proceeding can only be initiated against the Government employee after his retirement as provided under Rule 7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 with due sanction from the Government and the charges must be relating to the period within four years from the date of initiation of such proceeding. He further contended that on both count i.e. the date of initiation of proceeding which is admittedly after the retirement of the Petitioner and the charges which pertains to a period beyond four years from the date of institution of the Disciplinary Proceeding, the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against the Petitioner is without jurisdiction and authority of law. As such the same is void ab initio and accordingly the proceeding is liable to be quashed and the Opposite Parties be directed to pay the pensionary benefit as is due and admissible

to the Petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and after examination of their submissions, further taking note of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition as well as on careful analysis of the submissions of the learned counsel for the both sides, this Court observes that no decision has been taken so far the present Petitioner is concerned although the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties under Annexure-6. In such view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Opposite Party no.2 to first examine the maintainability of the proceeding keeping in view the factual background of the present case as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the aforesaid two judgments. In the event it is found that the Disciplinary Proceeding is without jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by the aforesaid two judgments and the proceeding be dropped by Opposite Party No.2. In the event the Disciplinary Proceeding is maintainable and the provision of Rule-7 has been complied with, then it is open to the Opposite Parties to proceed with the Disciplinary Proceeding. Further, the Opposite Parties shall consider the case of the Petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in State of Odisha & others vs. Sushant Ch. Sahoo & others. Accordingly, the claim of the Petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit be processed and the entire exercise be completed within three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be communicated to the

Petitioner as and when taken by the Opposite Parties.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS

Location: High Court of Orissa