The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.3048 of 2025 Ramesh Chandra Nanda ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Pravash Chandra Mahapatra -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Odisha 3) The D.f.o., Kuchinda Kendu Leaves Division ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. M.R. Mohanty, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 11.02.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 under Annexure-11 passed by the Opposite Party No.1. He has further prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to sanction the full and final pension to the petitioner along with other retiral benefits like DCRG & unutilised leave salary with interest on the unpaid amount. The petitioner has further prayed for opening of the sealed Page 1 of 5. cover of the petitioner and to give him promotion as per the recommendation of the DPC which has been kept in the sealed cover held on 21.08.2013, as no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner by the time the petitioner took retirement from Government service. He has also prayed for consequential service and financial benefits pursuant to the promotion which may be given to the petitioner with retrospective effect while carrying out the recommendation of the DPC. Additionally, he has also prayed for a direction to grant career financial advancement benefits like TBA, ACP & RACP with retrospective effect with all other consequential financial benefits as per law including interest @ 18% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that while the petitioner was working as Forest Ranger, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Subsequently, the petitioner was entangled in a vigilance case. He further contended that although the disciplinary proceeding was dropped, however, the vigilance case continued till the retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although the petitioner has retired from Government service w.e.f. 31.03.2014, no charge sheet was filed in the vigilance case, therefore the question of taking of cognizance by the Magistrate does not arise. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court by a single Bench in (W.A. No.2444 of 2024) Sushanta Kumar Sahu vs. State of Odisha arising out of W.P.(C) No.20992 of 2023 disposed of on 04.09.2024. He also relied upon the clarification of Home Department dated 22.08.2024 under Annexure-12 to the writ application by referring to the judgment Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court as well as the clarification of Page 2 of 5. the Home Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when the petitioner took retirement from service, neither any disciplinary proceeding was pending against him nor was any charge sheet filed against him in any judicial proceeding in shape of a vigilance case. Therefore, by applying the judgment of this Court in Sushanta Kumar sahu’s case (supra) as well as the resolution of the Home Department, under Annexure-12 the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits. He further contended that although the petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation on 17.09.2024 under Annexure-13 to the writ application, however, no final decision has been taken on such representation. Therefore, challenging inaction of the Opposite Party No.1, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. He further contended that the initially the petitioner submitted the representation on 24.11.2023 under Annexure-9 to the writ application before the Opposite Party No.1. Since the representation was not considered by the Opposite Party No.1, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.36256 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2024 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the direction of this Court in the earlier writ application has not been carried out, the petitioner was constrained to file CONTC No.2800/2024. This Court, vide order dated 03.05.2024, extended the time to implement the order passed by this Court in the abovenoted writ application. Finally, the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated Page 3 of 5. 11.07.2024 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 11.07.2024 under Annexure-11 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has not received any instruction from the opposite parties. However, he further contended that on perusal of the writ application it appears that the petitioner has approached the Opposite party No.1 by filing the representation on 17.09.2024 under Annexure-13. He further contended that in the event the representation, as alleged by the petitioner, has in fact been filed and no decision has been taken thereon, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time. 7. Considering such submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the backgrounds facts as well as in materials placed before this Court for consideration, this Court observes that the earlier representation of the petitioner under Annexure-9 was rejected vide order dated 11.07.2024. While disposing of the representation of the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 has not taken into consideration the clarificatory letter dated 22.08.2024 by Home Department under Annexure-12 as the clarification under Annexure-12 was issued only after the rejection of representation of the petitioner vide order dated 11.07.2024, under annecure-11. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner is required to be re-examined in terms of the judgment of this Court Page 4 of 5. as well as the clarificatory letter dated 22.08.2024 under Annexure- 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 under Annexure-11 is hereby set-aside. Further, the Opposite party No.1 is directed to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the letter dated 22.08.2024 under annexure-12 as well as the judgment of this Court in Sushant Sahoo’s Case within a period of eight weeks from date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order by the petitioner. It is further directed that the grievance of the petitioner shall be reconsidered as has been directed hereinabove and the same shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order by taking into consideration the judgment of this court as well as in the clarificatory letter dated 22.08.2024 and the final order passed thereon be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Feb-2025 11:09:17 Page 5 of 5.