The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1914 of 2024 Satyanarayan Pattanayak …. Petitioner Mr. D.K.Panda,Advocate -versus- Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Balasore & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 01.02.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties particularly Opp. Party No. 1 to forward the final pension papers, Gratuity and other retirement dues to the Accounts General office for sanction and disburse the pension, gratuity and other retirement dues of the petitioner forthwith as the he was retired from service on dt. 30.04.2023. And further to pay interest for the delayed payment for pension and gratuity @12% per annum. And pass any other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide // 2 // interest of justice.” 4. It is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that while the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Panchayat Executive Officer, he has entangled in the vigilance case bearing Balasore vigilance P.S. case No.49 dated 06.11.2013. While working as such the petitioner on attaining the date of superannuation has retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that although the petitioner has retired from service, he has not been paid his retiral dues as well as the pensionary benefits. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgment of this Court in State of Orissa and others vrs. Sushanta Chandra Sahoo and others reported in 2022 (Supp.) OLR-447 submitted before this Court that since no final form has been filed in vigilance case, pendency of such vigilance proceeding shall not stand in the way of the authorities to sanction and disburse the retiral dues as well as the pensionary benefits, as is due and admissible to the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opposite party No.1 be directed to release the retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits to the petitioner as is due and admissible as per law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referring to Annexure-4 to the writ application, which is a copy of the order sheet in VGR No.32 of 2013 arising Vigilance P.S. Case No.49 of 2013, submitted before this Court that till 22.06.2023 the final form was not filed. He further contended that even as of now also the final form has not been submitted. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that due to pendency of the vigilance case the opposite parties have not considered the case of the petitioner for the grant of // 3 // retiral as well as pensioanry benefits. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the opposite parties have not committed any illegality in not releasing the retiral as well as pensionary benefits to the petitioner even after the petitioner has retired from service in the meantime. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, and on a careful examination of the factual background as well as materials on record, this Court observes that the petitioner has retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2023. Further the vigilance P.S. Case which was registered against the present petitioner is at a nascent stage and the same has not attained any finality as no charge sheet has been filed till date. The division bench of this Court in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra) has categorically held that if on the date of retirement of Government employee no cognizance has been taken in the pending criminal case, then the same shall not stand as a bar in extending the financial benefit, in the shape of retiral dues as well as pensionary benefit in favour of the retired Government employee who was implicated in such criminal case. The Division Bench in the abovementioned Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case has further elaborated Rules 7 (2)(c) of the O.C.S. Pension Rules, 1992. Further, taking into consideration explanation B, the division bench comes to a conclusion that the judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted from the date when the magistrate takes cognizance of the office. In the aforesaid context it would be gainful to refer to Para-10 of the aforesaid judgment which is quoted in below:- // 4 // The word "cognizance" indicates that at the point of time when the Magistrate or Judge first takes judicial notice of the offence. More so, cognizance is being taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate peruses the complaint with a view to ascertain whether the commission of any offence is disclosed. The issuance of process is at a later stage when after considering the material placed before it, the court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom prima facie case is made out. More so, cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender and, therefore, once the court on perusal of the complaint/ FIR is satisfied that the complaint/FIR discloses the commission of an offence and there is no reason to reject the complaint at that stage, and proceeds further in the matter. 7. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case as well as the settled legal position in view of the law laid down by the division bench of this Court in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing the Opposite party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner by taking into consideration the law laid down by the division bench of this Court in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra). In the event it is found that no cognizance has been taken in the present case, the opposite parties shall do well follow the direction issued by the division bench in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra). Accordingly, final decision be taken so far the present petitioner is concerned. The petitioner is further directed to approach the Opposite party No.1 along with a certified copy of today’s order and copy of judgment in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra) within three weeks from today. In such eventuality the Opposite party No.1 shall do well to consider the case to the petitioner in the light of the law laid down in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra) and redress the grievance of the petitioner within a period of // 5 // six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such a decision. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Feb-2024 18:44:52