Orissa High Court
Nrusingha Tripathy vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 20 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 25060 of 2025
Nrusingha Tripathy ..... Petitioner
Mr. A. Routray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.09.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. A. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for
the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order
dtd.09.06.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-1.
4. It is contended that on retirement of the Petitioner, Petitioner was
sanctioned with provisional pension and all his pensionary benefits
were not released because of pendency of the vigilance proceeding.
4.1. However, it is contended that because of his conviction and
sentence in the vigilance proceeding in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 62 dtd.29.12.1995 vide Judgment dtd.30.10.2024 of the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sundergarh, Opp. Party No. 3 has
passed the impugned order by withholding the pension gratuity in
full and permanently.
4.2. It is contended that challenging order of conviction and sentence
Petitioner has already approached this Court by filing CRLA No.
1183 of 2024 and this Court has allowed the Petitioner to go on bail
while admitting the appeal. It is contended that since against the order
of conviction and sentence Petitioner since has moved this Court in
the aforesaid appeal, action of Opp. Party No. 3 in passing the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires
interference of this Court.
5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that after his retirement from service, Petitioner was only
sanctioned with provisional pension because of the pendency of the
vigilance proceeding against him. After his conviction and sentence
in the said vigilance proceeding, Petitioner though has approached
this Court by filing CRLA No. 1183 of 2024, but this Court has not
stayed the order of conviction and sentence. It is accordingly
contended that unless and until the order of conviction and sentence
is stayed by this Court, Petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit. It
is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly
passed as sanction of pension and pensionary benefit is subject to
good future conduct of the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner has been
convicted and order of conviction and sentence has not been stayed,
no interference is called for.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that after
retirement of the Petitioner, Petitioner was released with the
provisional pension only, because of the pendency of the vigilance
proceeding against him. It is not disputed that Petitioner was
convicted in the said vigilance proceeding vide Judgment
dtd.30.10.2024 in Sambalpur Vigilance Case No. 62 dtd.29.12.1995.
6.1. Even though Petitioner has moved this Court by filing CRLA
No. 1183 of 2024, but it is fairly contended that order of conviction
and sentence has not been stayed. In view of that position, this Court
is of the view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by
Opp. Party No. 3 in passing the impugned order dt.09.06.2025 under
Annexure-1. However, the order passed under Annexure-1, shall be
subject to final outcome of the criminal appeal. Petitioner if so likes,
can take appropriate step for early disposal of the appeal.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
