Orissa High Court
Natabar Nayak vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 19 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7224 of 2025
Natabar Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Dinesh Kumar Panda
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director, Panchayat Raj And Represented By Adv. -
Drinking Water Department Mr. M.R. Mohanty,
3) Collector, Sambalpur A.G.A.
4) District Panchayat Officer,
Collectorate, Sambalpur
5) Block Development Officer,
Rengali
6) Accountant General(a And E)
,odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.03.2025
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
Additional Government Advocate 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:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
other' appropriate writ, direction/direction directing the
opp. parties particularly Opp. Party No.3 to reconsider
his decision vide Annexure- 5 dated 02.07.2024 taking into
clarification issued by the Home Department, Government
of Odisha dated 22.08.2024 vide Annexure- 6 and sanction
his final pension, gratuity, cash equivalent for un utilized
E.L at credit, G.P.F, G.I.S and other retiral dues and
forward it to the Opp. Party No.6 as expeditiously as
possible within a stipulated period as the petitioner was
superannuated from service on dated 31.01.2024.
And pass any other order (s) or issue direction (s)
as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest
of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that
the petitioner, while working as Panchayat Executive Officer, has
taken retirement from service w.e.f. 31.01.2024 on attaining the age
of superannuation. Thereafter, on 24.04.2024, the petitioner
submitted a representation for sanction of his pension, gratuity and
other retirement dues. The Opposite Party No.3 sought for a
clarification from the S.P. Vigilance, Sambalpur regarding the status
of the Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.17 of 2017 vide letter dated
09.05.2024. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner against
submitted another representation on 21.05.2024, claiming his
pensionary and other retiral dues. Finally, on 02.07.2024, the
Opposite Party No.3 communicated to the petitioner that the final
pension, gratuity, unutilized leave salary of the petitioner cannot be
finalised on till conclusion of the vigilance pending against the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid context
submitted that although the petitioner has retired from service w.e.f.
31.01.2024, however charge sheet was filed on 11.07.2022 and the
cognizance has not been taken as of now in the abovenoted vigilance
case. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner,
referring to the Home Department circular dated 22.08.2024,
contended that a clarification has been issued to the effect that where
the government employee has retired and a vigilance case is pending
against him and no cognizance has been taken therein, in such
eventuality, the claim of the petitioner for pensionary and other
benefits like gratuity etc shall be processed by keeping in view the
fact that no vigilance case was pending against him on the date of
retirement and no cognizance has been taken thereon. He also
referred to this Court vide division bench in Sushanta Chandra
Sahu vs. State of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.14718 of 2015 contended
that a similar view has also been taken in the abnovenoted judgment
of this Court. On such ground, learned counsel for the petitioner
further contended that since no cognizance was taken on the date of
retirement there is no vigilance case was pending against the present
petitioner, as such the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefit
as well as gratuity and unutilised leave salary as is due an admissible
to him. He further contended that on 10.09.2024, the petitioner
submitted an application before the Opposite Party No.3, with a
prayer to review his decision dated 02.07.2024, however no decision
has been taken on such representation of the petitioner taking review
of order dated 03.07.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
since the vigilance case was pending against the present petitioner,
the state-opposite parties have not committed any illegality in
refusing to sanction and release the pensionary other retiral benefits
as is due an admissible to the petitioner. He further contended that
since the petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3
by filing revision petition on 10.01.2024 under Annexure-7 to the
writ application, in the event the same is still pending, he will have
no objection this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider
the same in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the circumstance,
further keeping in view the limited nature of grievance involved in
the present writ application, this court deems it proper to dispose of
the writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider
the representation dated 10.09.2024 under Annexure-7 by taking into
consideration the circular of Home Department dated 22.08.2024
under Annexure-6 as well as the judgment of this Court in Sushanta
Chandra Sahoo's case (supra). Further, it is directed that the
representation of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of
within a period of eight weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned
order. In the event, it is found that the petitioner is entitled the
pensionary as well as the retiral dues, including gratuity, the same
shall be released in his favour of within a period of six weeks on the
date of common order. The final decision so taken be communicated
to the Petitioner within 10 days thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
