The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3970 of 2024 Hrudananda Satapathy …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Mahapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. D. Nayak, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 26.02.2024 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: “It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships' be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule nisi in the nature of appropriate writ or any other writ (s) as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the prayer made hereunder shall not be allowed, and if no/ insufficient cause is shown, the said rule be made absolute by issuing writ(s) in the nature of: To quash the impugned order dt. 06.05.2023 passed by O.P. No. 1 at Annexure-6. AND, The Opposite Parties be directed to draw and disburse the unutilized leave salary to the petitioner at an early date with interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of the aforesaid amount till the date of disbursement in the // 2 // interest of justice. AND, Further be pleased to pass such other writ (s)/ order (s) as may deem just and proper,” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 18.11.1992, thereafter, he continued in service. While he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Angul (R&B) Division, Angul, a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner vide memo No.10876, dt.16.09.2015. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in May, 2020. Thereafter, the Petitioner has submitted a representation before the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-5 dated 23.11.2022 with a prayer for release of unutilized leave salary. The Opposite Parties have rejected such representation of the Petitioner vide order dated 06.05.2023 under Annexure-6 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by such rejection of his prayer the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. In course of his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no statutory embargo to withhold the unutilized leave salary, in the event any Disciplinary Proceeding is pending against any government employee. He further contended that such issue engaged the attention of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2037 of 2015 which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 14.08.2015 wherein the Tribunal had directed to release the unutilized leave salary as is due and admissible to the applicant, after adjustment of govt. dues, if any, within a period of three months. While passing such order the Tribunal had referred to the Financial Dept. Circular No.46545/F dated 17.12.1991. The order so passed by the Tribunal on 14.08.2015 was // 3 // assailed before this Court by the State-Opposite Parties by filing W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2016. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2017 that the order passed by the Tribunal is not vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition the order passed by the Tribunal was confirmed. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue i.e. in the case of State of Jharkhand & ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same should be quashed. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties on the other hand submitted that the representation filed by the Petitioner has been duly considered by the Opposite Party No.1. He further contended that since the Disciplinary Proceeding which was initiated against the Petitioner is still pending, the unutilized leave salary as is due and admissible to the Petitioner could not have been disbursed in his favour. He further contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality while rejecting the representation of the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the writ application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination as well as materials on record, this Court found that the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected the claim of the Petitioner for disbursal of the unutilized leave salary is an untenable one. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner the Opposite Parties have not taken into consideration the judgment of // 4 // the Hon’ble Supreme court as well as this Court. In such view of the matter, the impugned rejection order dated 06.05.2023 under Annexure- 6 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the impugned rejection order is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.3442 of 2016 dated 28.02.2017 under Annexure-8 to the writ application. The grievance of the Petitioner be addressed within a period of six weeks from the date the petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1 along with a certified copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner with a week thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Feb-2024 10:51:33