Sukanta Kumar Bhuyan vs The Govt. Of Odisha & .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1095 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sukanta Kumar Bhuyan vs The Govt. Of Odisha & .... Opposite ... on 6 February, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     W.P.(C) No.17762 of 2024
                               ....
      Sukanta Kumar Bhuyan                                         Petitioner
                                                       Mr. B. Baral, Advocate
                                    -versus-



      The Govt. of Odisha &             ....               Opposite Parties
      Ors.                                               Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC


                            CORAM:
                JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                ORDER

Order No.                     06.02.2026
   03.    1.    This matter is taken up through Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, to issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing to direct the Opp. Parties to supply the up-to-date duplicate Service Book (in original) opened at the time of joining of his service and to release the retirement benefits with back salary and pensionary benefits by regularising the service of the petitioner till his superannuation July, 2020;

And to pass any other order(s) or direction(s) be deemed fit and proper;

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opposite Party No.2, the proceeding was // 2 //

initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.01.03.2013 with the charge that he is in unauthorized absence w.e.f. 01.06.2012. Petitioner while submitting his reply on 25.07.2013 under Annexure-13 raised a contention that since he has already submitted an application seeking his intention to resign on 27.11.2012, the same be accepted by closing the proceeding.

4.1. It is contended that on the face of such reply submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-13 and without accepting his resignation, the proceeding was disposed of vide order dtd.31.03.2017. Even though vide the said order, the proceeding dtd.01.03.2013 was treated as dropped, but on the face of such order, when Petitioner was not extended with his arrear dues as well as retiral dues, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6332 of 2020 with a prayer to supply the up-to-date duplicate service book, release the retirement benefit of the Petitioner or to reinstate him in service. This Court vide order dtd.02.01.2024 under Annexure-25, when directed for consideration of the Petitioner's claim, the order under Annexure-1 was passed.

4.2. It is contended that since resignation submitted by the Petitioner on 27.11.2012 was never accepted and the proceeding was dropped vide order dtd.21.03.2017, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit as prayed for and the same has not been properly appreciated while issuing the order under Annexure-1.

// 3 //

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6332 of 2020 under Annexure-25, Petitioner's claim was considered and disposed of vide order dtd.04.03.2024 under Annexure-1. Since in the present Writ Petition the order under Annexure-1 is not under challenge, the present Writ Petition with similar prayer is not maintainable.

5.1. It is further contended that while disposing the proceeding vide order dtd.21.03.2017 under Annexure- G/2, resignation submitted by the Petitioner on 27.11.2012 since was accepted w.e.f. 21.03.2017, in view of the provision contained under Rule-34 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short 'Rules'), Petitioner became disentitled to get any benefit.

5.2. It is accordingly contended that since while disposing the proceeding vide order dtd.09.03.2017 under Annexure-G/2, Petitioner's resignation was accepted and such an order is also not under challenge nor it was also challenged in W.P.(C) No.6332 of 2020 basing on which the order under Annexure-1 has been passed, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit as prayed for.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, the

// 4 //

proceeding in question was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.01.03.2013.

6.1. It is found that Petitioner while submitting a reply under Annexure-13, he made a prayer to accept his resignation so submitted on 27.11.2012. While disposing the proceeding vide order dtd.09.03.2017 under Annexure-G/2, the proceeding though was dropped but the resignation so submitted earlier was accepted with immediate effect. In view of the provision contained under Rule-34 of the Rules, Petitioner become disentitled to get any retiral benefit.

6.2. Since neither order dtd.09.03.2017 so available under Annexure-G/2, nor order dtd.04.03.2024 so available under Annexure-1 are under challenge in the present Writ Petition, as per the considered view of this Court, the relief as prayed for cannot be extended.

6.3. Therefore, this Court while is not inclined to issue any direction as prayed for, only observe that unless and until order dtd.09.03.2017 and 04.03.2024 are challenged, Petitioner will not be eligible to get any benefit as prayed for.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Judge Date: 10-Feb-2026 18:43:10