Orissa High Court
Lalatendu Pal vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11991 of 2025
Lalatendu Pal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Lalatendu Samal
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
D. Lenka, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
06.05.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well
as learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing 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:
"It is therefore prayed that your lordships' would
be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition and
after hearing the counsels from both the sides issue
Writ/ Writs in the nature of Mandamus with a direction
to the Opp. Party No-1 for drawal and disbursement of
50% balance salary in favour of the petitioner for the
suspension period from 24.04.2003 to 18.01.2004 (270
days) by way of regularizing the said period as the
petitioner has been reinstated in service on 19.01.2004
pending finalization of Cuttack Vigilance PS Case No-
20, dated. 23.04.03, U/s. 13(2)/read with 13(1)(d)/ 7PC
Act. 1988 which has been finalized by the Special
Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack vide Judgment dated.
21.02.2024 in T.R Case No-21/2008(206/2014) through
which the petitioner has been acquitted.
AND/OR pass such other order/orders deemed fit
and proper."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner, while working as a Junior Engineer, was entangled in
vigilance case i.e. Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.20,
dt.23.04.2003. He further submitted that simultaneously a
Departmental Proceeding was also initiated against the present
Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended
that the Petitioner, who faced trial in the abovenoted Vigilance
case, has been subsequently acquitted by the Special Judge
(Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.21/2008 vide judgment
dated 21.02.2024. He further contended that the Departmental
Proceeding which was initiated against the Petitioner has ended
in exoneration of the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submitted that after conclusion of the aforesaid
proceedings, the Petitioner was reinstated in service vide order
dated 10.07.2004 under Annexure-2 to the writ application.
5. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ
application is that although the above noted proceedings have
ended in acquittal and exoneration respectively, however, the
Opposite Parties have not extended ACP, RACP and MACP
benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. Being
aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner
initially approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a
representation dated 11.03.2024 under Annexure-4 to the writ
application. He further contended that no decision has been taken
on such representation and being aggrieved by such inaction of
the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court
by filing the present writ application.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted
that since the grievance of the Petitioner is pending before the
competent authority i.e. Opposite Party No.1, he will have no
objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1
to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner
strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of
time, in the event the same is still pending.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background
facts as well as materials on record, further taking note of the
development in the present mater and keeping in view the limited
nature of grievance of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper
to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by
directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation
of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 dated 11.03.2024, if the same
is still pending, strictly in accordance with law and within a
period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a
certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. It is needless to
mention here that the representation of the Petitioner shall be
considered and & disposed of by passing a speaking and
reasoned order. It is further directed that in the event the
Opposite Party No.1 comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner is
entitled to the financial up-gradation as has been claimed in his
representation, then necessary steps be taken for sanction and
disbursal of such amount within six weeks from the date of
taking such a decision, if there are no other legal impediments to
the same. Any decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be
communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of
taking such a decision.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 07-May-2025 17:52:03
