Orissa High Court
Pradipta Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 29 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35724 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
----
Pradipta Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - M/s.K.K. Swain,
K.Swain & J.R. Khuntia
(Advocates)
For Opp. Parties - Mr.S.B. Mohanty,
Addl. Government Advocate
---
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 29.10.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Petitioner gained employment as a Lecturer in Zoology vide
appointment order dated 12.01.1989. This was made after selection
conducted by the Governing Body then. He reported for duty with
effect from 16.01.1989. Petitioner's appointment came to be
validated in terms of the Validation Act, 1998 with effect from
01.04.1992, presumably the issue as to validity of a class of such
employees having cropped up in the State. He gained promotion
to the post of Reader as it then was with retrospective effect from
01.04.2019 pursuant to order dated 10.02.2021. He demitted office
on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2023. Petitioner is
knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated
02.12.20.23 (Annexure-11) whereby the Special Secretary to
Government in the Department of Higher Education has in a way
indefinitely held up the terminal benefits of the petitioner on the
ground that petitioner is not coming forward despite granting
abundant opportunity to produce the educational certificates and
therefore, the inquiry be kept open against him in eternity. With
that ground, the impugned order rejects petitioner's representation
dated 23.04.2022 for grant of terminal benefits including the
pension etc.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pressing into
service the decision of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of
India, AIR 1983 SC 130, submits that pension being consideration
for the past service rendered by an employee, has to be sanctioned
& released to the petitioner especially when there is no fault on his
part. He also draws attention of the Court to the checkered history
of the case, which involved certain allegations made against the
petitioner as to procurement of public employment by production
of fake certificates. The efforts of complainant having failed, some
other persons lodged FIR in Brahmagir Police Station against the
petitioner and filed CRLMP No.791 of 2022 before this Court,
which came to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- vide order
dated 25.01.2023. The matter was carried forward to the Apex
Court with no avail. He also adds that the investigation was
conducted by the Crime Branch of the State and the report
exonerating the petitioner from all charges was prepared on
30.12.2023. Therefore, he submits, the opposite parties are liable to
sanction & release all terminal benefits with interest.
3. After service of notice, opposite parties having entered
appearance through the learned AGA, have filed the counter
resisting the petition. Mr.Mohanty, learned AGA vehemently
contends that once the public employment is procured by
producing fake certificates, no benefit can be derived by the
employee since fraud & fabrication vitiate everything and
therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ
jurisdiction, which is meant for scrupulous litigants. He also tells
that despite granting abundant opportunity, petitioner failed to
produce genuine certificates or documents to vouch his claim that
he had studied I.Sc. in 1980, B.Sc. in 1982, & M.Sc. in 1985 and only
thereafter in a scrupulous way, he got entry to public employment.
Lastly, he also argues that fraud vitiates everything vide S.P.
Chengal Varaya Naidu V. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and therefore,
petition is liable to be rejected.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
i) There was a selection process, which eventually resulted into
issuance of appointment order to the petitioner on 12.01.1989 as a
Lecturer in Zoology; petitioner reported for duty on 16.01.1989. He
earned promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 10.02.2021
and he retired on 28.02.2023. All this is not at all in dispute.
Petitioner has been paid salary attached to the post in question in
which he worked is also not in dispute. However, counsel for the
petitioner makes it clear that the salary for the last month
preceding the retirement has not been paid. Be that as it may, the
allegation as to petitioner having produced fabricated documents
secured public employment was made way back in the year 2019
and it was none other than by his brother-in-law, namely,
Gajendra Pradhan. That person has filed W.P.(C) No.4468 of 2019
by making the said allegation wherein petitioner happened to be
Opposite Party No.8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 15.03.2019 ex parte directed the authorities to take a decision
on the representation filed by said Gajendra Pradhan. Petitioner
filed W.A. No.283 of 2019 and Division Bench of this Court, vide
order dated 15.07.2019, set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge. Thus, the allegation made against the petitioner by the
complainant came to an end.
ii) Another person, namely, Biswajit Patnaik, had tried to lodge
a complaint against the petitioner in Brahmagiri Police Station.
Since it was not registered by the police, he had filed CRLMP
No.791 of 2022 before this Court, which dismissed it vide order
dated 25.01.2023 with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, he
carried the matter further to the Apex Court in SLP (Criminal)
No.2257 of 2023 and that too came to be negatived vide order
dated 02.02.2024. Thus, all allegations made against the petitioner
were put to descent burial once for all. Admittedly, the allegations
as to procurement of employment by producing false documents
was known to the opposite parties long before and more precisely
when the complaint was made by his brother-in-law way-back in
the year 2009. Thereafter, the records reveal, the Crime Branch of
Police having investigated into the matter, gave a clean chit to the
petitioner vide Report dated 30.12.2023. This would weigh heavily
in favour of the petitioner.
iii) The stand of the opposite parties that the petitioner did not
come forward despite issuance of notices several times, with
evidentiary material to vouch his stand that the documents are not
spurious and therefore, the terminal benefits have not been given
to him is very difficult to countenance. As already mentioned, in
January, 1989, he was given initial appointment; in 2021, he was
given promotion with retrospective effect from 2019 as a Reader.
Thereafter, he retired in February, 2023 on attaining the age of
superannuation. The contention that petitioner did not come-
forward with the required documents would not come to the
rescue of opposite parties, who could by all means have held an ex
parte inquiry, if they wanted. There is no justification whatsoever
for holding any inquiry when already on this side and on the
criminal side, matter having been investigated into all allegations
were found false and a clean chit is issued to the petitioner. In that
fact matrix, no purpose would be served by keeping the
contemplated inquiry pending against the petitioner in eternity.
iv. Counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in
submitting that pension is no longer a bounty after the decision of
the Apex Court in Deokinanda Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2
SCC 330 followed by D.S. Nakara V. Union of India, AIR 1983 130
withholding of pension is also in a way offensive to Article 300-A
jurisprudence in the light of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Limited v. State
of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1. The money payable to retired
employee is his property and therefore, withholding it indefinitely
amounts to its acquisition, at least temporarily. Such an act on the
part of opposite parties would put the retired employees to untold
hardship in difficult days like this when bread is costlier than
blood. How a retired employee would be able to hold his body &
soul together without any life support, needs to be imagined. The
State & its officials have to conduct themselves as model
employers, observed Apex Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v.
State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. There is absolutely no reason or
rhyme for withholding pension & other terminal benefits payable
to the petitioner. Such things should not happen to other
employees, who are going to retire. The retires should be treated
with honour & dignity; this is a constitutional imperative under
the Directive Principles. Petitioner has been given an unfair
treatment, if not cruel; one cannot go with impunity. Exemplary
costs need to be levied.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds. A Writ of
Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order (Annexure-11)
coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to Opposite Party No.2 to
sanction & release all terminal benefits in favour of the petitioner
in an outer limit of eight (8) weeks with interest at the rate of 12%
per annum to be reckoned from the date on which they ought to
have been released.
This Court intended to levy exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh). However, it refrains from doing it on the
passionate submission of Mr.Mohanty, learned AGA and the grace
shown by Mr.Swain, learned counsel representing the petitioner.
However, costs would become payable, if this order is not
complied within the time stipulated.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 29th day of October, 2025/Basu
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 31-Oct-2025 16:42:01
