MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE v. NARASINGH
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Nov-2024 17:26:35 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 395 OF 2002 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** State of Odisha and another …… Petitioners -Versus- Pranab Ranjan Das .…… Opp. Party Advocates appeared:
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioners : Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, Additional Government Advocate For Opp. Party : CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Decision
------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on 26.11.2024 ---------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. State of Odisha being the Petitioners have filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 20th March, 2001 W.P.(C) No. 395 OF 2002 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Nov-2024 17:26:35 // 2 // (Annexure-1) passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1021 of 1995. 3. Briefly stated, the Opposite Party was made to retire compulsorily being found guilty of unauthorized absence from service in a disciplinary proceeding. At the relevant time, the Opposite Party was serving as the Additional Block Development Officer, Gop Block in the district of Puri under the Panchayat Raj Department. The Opposite Party being aggrieved filed O.A. No.1021 of 1995 before learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, discussing the case in detail and taking into consideration Rule-23 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (for brevity ‘the Rules’) held that the leave availed by the Opposite Party be treated as leave taken on medical ground as it is supported by medical certificate even though the medical certificate was not furnished in time. Thus, taking into account the fact that the Opposite Party was made to retire compulsorily and he lost nineteen years of service as well as reasonable chance of promotion during those years, learned Tribunal taking a compassionate view in the matter, substituted the penalty of compulsory retirement as period of extra-ordinary leave from 6th February, 1987 to 10th January, 1991 and qualifying service for pension in terms of Rule 23(1)(i) of the Rules. Accordingly, the order of punishment was modified and the Petitioners-State were W.P.(C) No. 395 OF 2002 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Nov-2024 17:26:35 // 3 // directed to release the pension and other retiral benefit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently argued that the Opposite Party assailed the order of compulsory retirement on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. There is ample material on record to show that the Opposite Party was provided with reasonable opportunity of hearing and to place his case before the Enquiry Officer. The procedures provided under the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 was meticulously complied before imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. He further submitted that the medical certificate upon which the Opposite Party relied upon was not submitted in time. Thus, a doubt arises with regard to the genuineness of those medical certificates. These aspects were not properly considered by learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order under Annexure-2. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the Opposite Party. 5. Although the writ petition was filed in the year, 2002, but notice in the matter has not yet been issued to the Opposie Party. Further, the writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution on 23rd March, 2007. However, the Petitioners filed CMAPL No.154 of 2007 to recall the order dated 23rd W.P.(C) No. 395 OF 2002 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Nov-2024 17:26:35 // 4 // March, 2007. This Court vide order dated 22nd August, 2024 recalled the order dated 23rd March, 2007 and restored the writ petition to file for hearing on merit. Hence, the matter has come up before this Bench for consideration, after twenty two years of filing of writ petition. 6. Upon hearing Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that learned Tribunal has taken into consideration Rule 23 (1)(i) of the Rules, which reads as under: “23. Counting of periods spent on leave- (1) All leave during service of a Government servant for which leave salary is payable and all extraordinary leave granted- (i) On medical certificate, or xxx xxx xxx NOTE-The period of extraordinary leave taken on all other grounds which does not count as qualifying service shall be mentioned in the Service Book/Record.” 6.1. Rule 23(1)(i) of the Rules provides conditions under which extra-ordinary leave can be counted towards pension. The Opposite Party, though belatedly, filed medical certificate in support of his illness. Learned Tribunal taking the same into consideration held the period from 6th February, 1987 to 10th January, 1991 as extra-ordinary leave of the Opposite Party. W.P.(C) No. 395 OF 2002 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Nov-2024 17:26:35 // 5 // At this juncture, it is apt to refer to Rule 45 (3) of the Rules. The said Rule deals with grant of pension in case of compulsory retirement. Relevant extract of the said Rule is culled out hereunder for convenience of reference; 45. Grant of pension in case of compulsory retirement – (1) A Government servant compulsorily retired from service as a measure penalty may be granted, by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity or both at a rate less than two-third and not more than full compensation pension or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. (2) Whenever in the case of a Government servant, the Governor passes an order awarding a pension less than the full compensation pension admissible under the rules, the Orissa Public Service Commission shall be consulted before such order is passed. Explanation - For the purpose of this Sub-rule the expression ‘pension’ shall include gratuity. (3) A pension granted or awarded under Sub-Rule (1) or, as the case may be, under Sub-rule (2), shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension admissible.” Thus, in any event, the Opposite Party would have been entitled to minimum pension. Hence, there being no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order at annexure-2. W.P.(C) No. 395 OF 2002 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Nov-2024 17:26:35 // 6 // 7. Accordingly, this Court does not deem it proper to issue notice in the matter to the Opposite Party after more than two decades of filing of the writ petition, as noted. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (V. Narasingh) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 26th November, 2024/Madhusmita W.P.(C) No. 395 OF 2002 Page 6 of 6