[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tilotama Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 20 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.632 of 2026
Tilotama Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Krishna Chandra Sahu
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. A.Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.03.2026
I.A. No.4943 of 2026
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
3. Considering the submissions made, the order dated
26.02.2026 is hereby recalled.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
6. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"In view of the facts & submissions mentioned
above the petitioner prays for the following relief(s):-
i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit & allow the
writ petition.
ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned
order dtd.
17.09.2025 under Annexure-12.
iii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the 0pp.
parties to sanction & disburse the unutilized leave
salary amounts as due & admissible in favour of the
petitioner alongwith prevailing bank interest keeping in
view of the order at Annexure-7 & 8 so also the decision
of their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"State of Jharkhand & Others -Vs- Jitendra Ku.
Srivastav & another reported in (2013) 12 SCC-210" as
well as judgement of this Hon'ble Court passed in the
case of "Chittaranjan Senapati -Vs. State of Odisha"
reported in 2025 (Supp. II) OLR-865 within a time
bound period for the interest of justice.
iv) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any order
(s)/ direction(s) as deems fit and proper for the interest
of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in
duty bound ever pray."
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Hindi Teacher on
15.02.1989. After serving for a long period of time the Petitioner
was promoted to the Junior SES on 13.06.2006. After serving for
several decades of the Government, the Petitioner has finally retired
from service with effect from 29.02.2024 on attaining the age of
superannuation from the post of TGT from Govt. Boys High School,
Unit-8, Bhubaneswar.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the juncture contended
that while the Petitioner was containing as an Assistant Teacher, she
was placed under suspension on 18.10.2019. a departmental
Proceeding was drawn up against the present Petitioner on
05.08.2020 and accordingly memorandum of charge was served on
the Petitioner on 10.09.2020. During the pendency of the aforesaid
departmental proceeding, the Petitioner was reinstated in service.
The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is
that although the Petitioner has retired from service and that there is
no legal impediment in realizing the unutilized leave salary as is due
and admissible to the Petitioner however, the Opposite Parties have
not sanctioned and disbursed such amount in favour of the
Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgment of this Court in Chittaranjan Senapati vs.
State of Odisha reported in 2025 (Supp.II) OLR-865 by referring to
the aforesaid judgment in Chittranjan Senapati's case (supra),
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that this Court has
categorically held that the pendency of either the departmental
proceeding or any criminal proceeding shall not stand in the way of
the authority to disburse the unutilized leave salary as their exist no
bar in the statute for grant of such relief during the pendency of the
proceedings. He further submitted that such principle has been
followed by the Opposite Parties in many other cases.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
he has no specific instruction in the present matter however, he
further submitted that the pleadings in the writ petition reveals that
the Petitioner is facing a departmental proceeding as well as he has
been entangled in vigilance P.S. Case No.44 dated 03.10.2019 which
corresponds to VGR Case No.49 of 2019 now pending in the Court
of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that Opposite
Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of
the Petitioner for grant of unutilized leave salary in favour of the
Petitioner.
10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
Parties, on a careful consideration of the background facts, further
keeping in view the pleadings made in the writ application as well as
the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this
Court is of the view that the present writ application has been filed
with a limited prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to grant
unutilized leave salary in favour of the Petitioner.
11. Taking into consideration, the nature of the relief sought for
and impugned order dated 17.09.2025 at Annexure-12, this Court is
of the view that the claim of the Petitioner has not been considered
by applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Chittaranjan
Senapati's case (supra) while passing the impugned order dated
17.09.2025 at Anexure-12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
17.09.2025 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to
the Opposite Party No.3 to reconsider the claim of the Petitioner by
taking into consideration, the ratio laid down in Chittaranjan
Senapati's case (supra). The Petitioner is directed to approach the
Opposite Party No.3 within two weeks' from today along with a
copy of today's order. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3
shall consider the claim of the Petitioner by taking into consideration
the judgment in Chittaranjan Senapati's case (supra) within a
period of six weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches the
Opposite Party No.3.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4.
