Orissa High Court
Mahendra Kumar Barik vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7071 of 2025
Mahendra Kumar Barik ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Parsuram Parija
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Akshaya Pati, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.03.2025
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:-
"In the circumstances and for the ends of
justice your Lordship would graciously be pleased to
admit this Writ Petition and issue notice to the Opp.
Parties with direction as to why this Hon'ble Court
may not issue direction to the Opp. Parties No.2 and
5 to sanction the arrear salary as well as retirement
benefit which is pending of the Petitioner and to
quash Annexure-3, i.e. order dated 28.06.2024
passed in Misc. Case No.l I of 2023 by the Collector,
Nayagarh, copy forwarded to the Petitioner vide
Memo No. 1894, dtd. 16.07.2024 failing which the
Rule may be made absolute and direct Opp. Parties
No.2 and 5 to sanction and release the arrear salary
and retirement benefit of the Petitioner within
stipulated period of time ;
And any other order/orders your Lordships
think fit and proper may pass in favour of the
Petitioner."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that while the Petitioner was working as Panchayat Executive
Officer under Odagaon Block, he was placed under suspension
pending initiation of a Departmental Proceeding. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the
Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation in September, 2022, he has not been paid his
arrear dues including salary as well as his retiral dues and
pensionary benefits. He further contended that although the
Petitioner was placed under suspension and he was reinstated
subsequently, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated only after
retirement of the Petitioner by serving a Memo of Charge
No.1894 dated 16.07.2024. Since the memo of charge was
submitted admittedly after his retirement, therefore, there was no
proceeding pending against the Petitioner on the date of his
retirement. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to the retiral
dues. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the provisions contained in the O.C.S. (Pension)
Rules, 1992 as well as judgment by a Division Bench of this
Court in State of Odisha and others v. Sushanta Chandra
Sahoo and others (W.P.(C) No.14718 of 2015 decided on
06.05.2022).
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that since the Petitioner is facing a disciplinary
proceeding, his dues have been withheld. He further contended
that the case of the Petitioner for payment of his arrear dues as
well as other retirement dues can only be considered only after
the conclusion of the pending disciplinary proceeding. On such
ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present
writ petition is pre-mature and, as such, the same should be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ
petition, this Court observes that the Petitioner in his writ
petition has pleaded that although he was placed under
suspension during his service carrier, however, the Departmental
Proceeding was initiated by issuing a memo of charge on
16.07.2024, which is admittedly after the date of his retirement.
In such view of the matter, this Court observes that on the date
of his retirement, no proceeding was pending against the present
Petitioner. Moreover, it is also not known as to whether any
permission is taken under Rule-7 of O.C.S. (Pension) Rules for
initiation or continuance of such Disciplinary Proceeding after
retirement of Petitioner from service.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid anomaly and further taking
note of the relevant provisions of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules as
well as the judgments in the aforesaid context, this Court deems
it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a
detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with
copies of the judgments relied upon by him within two weeks
from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall
do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner keeping
in view the legal position as well as the judgments relied upon
by the Petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking
and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date
of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final
decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten
days from the date of taking such decision. It is further made
clear that in the event the Opposite Party No.2 comes to a
conclusion that no proceeding was pending against the Petitioner
on the date of his retirement, then necessary steps be taken for
disbursal of the financial dues of the Petitioner as expeditiously
as possible in the event it is found that there is no other legal
impediment to the same.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ
petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Debasis
