Orissa High Court
Pradyumana Kumar Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 17 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.5256 of 2025
Pradyumana Kumar Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Laxmikanta
Tripathy
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Smt. Siva Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
17.03.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays
that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to
issue rule nisi calling upon the opp. Parties to show
cause as to why the impugned letter dated 12.11.2024
at Annexure-3 illegally withholding the DCRG Amount
of Rs.13,50,360 and as to why the Opp. Party should
not be directed to sanction and release the DCRG
Amount of Rs. 13,50,360 along with all consequential
retiral and pensionary benefits as due and admissible.
And if the Opp. Party failed to show cause or
sufficient cause, the rule be made absolute.
And further be pleased to issue any other
appropriate writ or order/orders, as may be deemed fit
and proper in the interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Field Assistant and,
accordingly, he joined in service on 18.05.1987 under the Directorate
of Textile in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-20240/-. While he was
working in the office of A.D.S., Keonjhar where the Petitioner was
posted as Production Officer, the Petitioner finally retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.07.2020. He further
contended that the Petitioner, on completion of 20 years of service,
was granted 2nd RACP benefits with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- with
effect from 31.10.2016. He further contended that by 23.04.2018 the
Petitioner completed 30 years of service, therefore, he was entitled to
get 3rd MACP benefits with effect from that date. On 08.10.2021, a
letter was issued by the Government indicating therein that the Field
Assistants, who have otherwise been promoted to Senior Tassar
Assistant, are not eligible to avail RACP benefits. Accordingly, the
RACP benefit that was extended in favour of the Petitioner was
revised subsequently. Being aggrieved by such order of the Opposite
Parties, the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.34994 of 2021. The said writ petition was taken up along
with a batch of similar other writ petitions and disposed of the same by
a common judgment dated 4.12.2024 under Annexure-2 to the writ
petition. The coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the
batch of writ petitions has quashed the order under Annexure-12 in
respect of the Petitioner with a further direction to the Opposite Parties
to grant of such benefits in terms of order dated 07.10.2016. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the direction of the
coordinate Bench of this Court in the above noted writ petition, the
impugned order directing recovery of sum of Rs.1,02,366/- is illegal
and the same is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it was prayed that
the said part of the order be quashed.
5. Further, pursuant to the direction of this Court, learned counsel
for the State obtained instruction from the Opposite Parties. On
instruction, she further contended that no disciplinary proceeding or
judicial proceeding is pending against the present Petitioner with
regard to the alleged financial irregularities as reported by the Special
Internal Audit. Thus, there is no bar in law in releasing the DCRG
dues to the present Petitioner as no proceeding, either judicial or
departmental, is pending against the Petitioner. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite
Parties be directed to release the entire DCRG amount of
Rs.13,50,360/- in favour of the present Petitioner within a stipulated
period of time along with interest for the delayed payment.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that
the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 under Annexure-3 reveals that
certain financial irregularities have been alleged against the Petitioner
in the Special Internal Audit Report. On such basis, the Opposite
Parties have withheld the DCRG dues as payable to the Petitioner to
the tune of Rs.13,50,360/- awaiting further clearance of the Pension
Sanctioning Authority. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the State submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any
illegality in withholding the DCRG dues as is payable to the present
Petitioner. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted
that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful analysis of their submissions made, further
keeping in view the factual background of the present case as well as
on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the present writ
petition, this Court observes that the Petitioner has approached this
Court being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties in
withholding the DCRG dues payable to the Petitioner to the tune of
Rs.13,50,360/-. However, learned counsel for the State, on instruction,
contended that no disciplinary/judicial proceeding is pending against
the present Petitioner. Moreover, the recovery of a sum of
Rs.1,02,366/- is contrary to the judgment dated 04.12.2024 passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court, under Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the
present writ petition and, accordingly, the same is hereby allowed.
Further, the Opposite Party No.3-Director, Textiles, Bhubaneswar is
directed to issue necessary instruction to the Opposite Party No.4-the
Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar to release
the DCRG dues in favour of the Petitioner. It is further directed that
since the Petitioner has retired from the year 2020 and the DCRG
dues, which were supposed to be paid within a year from the date of
retirement, have not been paid, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay
the interest on such delayed payment as per the rules to the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the Opposite Parties shall do well to calculate and pay
the interest of the aforesaid DCRG dues as has been provided in the
rules. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight
weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this
order.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
