The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.3280 of 2025 ..... Binayak Digal Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate State of odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 09.04.2025 Order No.03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dtd.10.02.2025 learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by Opp. Party No. 2 in Court. The same be kept in record.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.01.01.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get his retiral benefits as due and admissible has been rejected on the ground that Petitioner got the benefit of appointment by utilising the caste certificate, which has been cancelled as per the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in FCC Case No. 496/2010. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner was the subject Page 1 of 6. matter of challenge before the State Level Scrutiny Committee in FCC Case No. 496/2010. The Committee vide its order dtd.28.01.2013 under Annexure-3 when directed for cancellation of the caste certificate and to take other consequential penal action against the Petitioner, challenging the said order, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 8891 of 2013. 5.1. It is contended that this Court vide its judgment dtd.04.05.2023 under Annexure-2 quashed the final order passed by the Committee on 28.01.2013. After such quashing of the order so passed by the Committee by this Court under Annexure-2, Opp. Party No. 4 vide his letter dtd.03.11.2023 under Annexure-5 requested Opp. Party No. 2 to issue necessary instruction/clarification as to whether Petitioner could be paid with the retiral benefits by regularising his service. While making such a communication, final order passed by this Court under Annexure-2 was also enclosed. 5.2. It is contended that on the face of such request made by the B.E.O., when no action was taken, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 40987 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.19.12.2023 directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the request made by B.E.O. within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 5.3. It is contended that on being communicated with the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get all his retiral dues with regularisation of his service was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.10.01.2025 under Annexure-7. Page 2 of 6. 5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the final order passed by the Committee under Annexure-3 was quashed by this Court in its judgment dtd.04.05.2023 under Annexure-2, all such penal actions taken against the Petitioner basing on the impugned order passed by the Committee, became redundant and Petitioner became eligible to get all his retiral dues as due and admissible with due regularization of the break period of service. 5.5. It is also contended that Opp. Party No. 4 vide his letter dtd.03.01.2023 under Annexure-5 requested Opp. Party No. 2 to take necessary decision in that regard. But without proper appreciation of the final order passed by this Court under Annexure-2, Petitioner has been held ineligible to get the benefit of his retiral dues with due regularization of the break period of service vide the impugned order. 5.6. It is contended that since the final order passed by the Committee has been set aside by this Court, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all his retiral dues with due regularization of his service and such a claim has been wrongly rejected by Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned order under Annexure-7. 5.7. A further submission was also made that basing on the impugned order passed under Annexure-7, Opp. Party No. 4 vide order dtd.29.01.2025, also stopped the provisional pension so sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner vide order dtd.31.03.2021 under Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law and so also order dt.29.01.2025, passed by Opp. Party No. 4. Page 3 of 6. 6. Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on the instruction contended that challenging the final order passed by the Committee, Petitioner though approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8891 of 2013 and this Court passed an interim order on 09.05.2013 staying the operation of the order till 10.08.2013, but in the meantime Petitioner taking into account the final order passed by the Committee Petitioner was arrested in connection with Raikia P.S. Case No. 05 dt.31.01.2013 and remained in custody for the period from 31.01.2013 to 09.04.2013. 6.1. It is also contended that Petitioner thereafter was placed under suspension vide order dt.10.06.2013 of the S.I. of Schools, Raikia. But taking into account the interim order passed by this Court on 09.05.2013, Petitioner was reinstated vide order dtd.31.08.2013 by revoking the order of suspension so passed w.e.f.30.06.2013. Petitioner on such reinstatement, continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2021. 6.2. It is however contended that in spite of being allowed due opportunity, since Petitioner failed to produce the authentic caste certificate, he is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit as prayed for in the present writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner basing on which he got the benefit of appointment, was the subject matter of challenge before the State Level Scrutiny Committee in FCC No. 896 of 2010. The Committee vide order dtd.28.01.2013 under Annexure- 3, when quashed the caste certificate and directed to take various penal actions against the Petitioner, Petitioner challenging the Page 4 of 6. same approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8891 of 2013. As found, vide judgment dtd.04.05.2023 under Annexure-2, final order passed by the Committee was set aside and quashed by this Court. 7.1. It is also found from the record that after such order passed by this Court, Opp. Party No. 4 vide his communication dtd.03.11.2023 under Annexure-5, requested Opp. Party No. 2 to take necessary action with regard to sanction of the retiral benefits in favour of the Petitioner. 7.2. However, on the face of such order passed by this Court and the request made by Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-5, when the benefits were not extended, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 40987 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.19.12.2023 under Annexure-6 when directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a final decision on the request made by Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-5, claim of the Petitioner to get all his retiral benefits has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.10.01.2025 under Annexure-7. 7.3. It is also found from the record that provisional pension sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner vide order dtd.31.03.2021 has also been cancelled by Opp. Party No. 4 vide office order dtd.29.01.2025 so enclosed to the additional affidavit. 7.4. It is the view of this Court that since the final order passed by the Committee has been set aside by this Court vide its judgment under Annexure-2 and there is no instruction that such an order passed by this Court has been assailed by the State before the higher forum, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible Page 5 of 6. and entitled to get all his retiral dues as due and admissible with due regularization of his service. 7.5. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.01.01.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-7 and so also order dtd.29.01.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 4. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to sanction the pension and pensionary benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner with due regularization of his period of suspension within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. But in the meantime provisional pension so sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner vide order dtd.31.03.2021 under Annexure-1 be restored with release of all the arrears, within a period of two (2) weeks from today.
Decision
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Apr-2025 10:22:49 Page 6 of 6.