The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 11403 of 2023 Birendra Kumar Panda …. Petitioner Mr. D.K.Dhar, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa and Others …. Opposite parties Mr. S.Behera, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 10.07.2025 Order No. 02. 1. Heard Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties. Instant writ petition 2. the petitioner challenging the impugned order 23rd March, 2023 as at filed by is Annexure-15 of opposite party No.4 and to direct the latter to adjust the paid vouchers bills received from him from 2010 and onwards within a stipulated period on the grounds stated. 3. Referring to the inspection report for the year 2016-17 as at Annexure-4, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of such inspection, it was concluded that the CDVO, Sambalpur was having an amount of Rs. 22,11,566/- in the current account, which is prohibited as per Page 1 of 6 the instructions of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha and furthermore, the authority concerned, at the time of such audit, failed to produce the adjusted/unadjusted vouchers pending against the officials as on 16th February, 2016 including the petitioner in shape of advance for an amount of Rs.32,88,975/- and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the outstanding advance stood at Rs.3,19,839/- as made to reveal therefrom and in the meanwhile, necessary correspondences had taken place vide Annexures-5,6&7 to consider adjournment against the advance released and even representation of the petitioner was to be considered but no decision was taken thereon. The further submission is that the petitioner once again moved the concerned authority as per Annexure-9 and thereafter, further correspondences continued but it was of no avail, as a result of which, the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court in W.P.(C) No.15412 of 2020 disposed of by order dated 13th July, 2020 and was followed by the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.16254 of 2020 vide Annexure-14 but no fruitful result was achieved. The contention of Mr. Dhar, learned counsel is that in view of the pending adjustment of advance with the demand for the petitioner to submit the physical vouchers was not possible having been directed after several years, and since failed to comply the same, the pension and gratuity payable to him has been withheld after retirement, hence, therefore, the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023 of Page 2 of 6 opposite party No.4 is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice. 4. Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties requests for an adjournment to file the counter affidavit. However, the Court is not inclined to allow any such adjournment for the fact that the petitioner has retired in the meantime and the pension and gratuity with other retiral benefits due to him has been held up. In other words, the Court is in favour of an early disposal considering the materials on record and in view of the orders in W.P.(C) Nos. 15412 of 2020 and 16254 of 2022. 5. Admittedly, in course of an audit inspection, the irregularities were pointed out and the same is in relation to the advance released in favour of the petitioner and others not to have been adjusted later on. From Annexure-5, the Court finds that opposite party No.4, namely, CDVO, Sambalpur had directed the clerk in-charge of the office to produce details of the advance position along with the paid vouchers adjusted against such advance within a stipulated period of time. It was followed by the necessary correspondences, such as, Annexures-6&7. In fact, as per Annexure-6, the State Government in Fisheries & A.R.D. Department requested opposite party No.4 to consider the representation dated 18th January, 2018 with regard to the adjustment of the advance and Page 3 of 6 to do the needful with an enquiry held. Further correspondences have taken place at the behest of opposite party No.4 as made to reveal from Annexure-7 with a direction to the petitioner and others to submit the bill/vouchers against the advance in compliance of the audit report. It is contended by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner that representation was received by the authority concerned with a claim of the petitioner to have furnished the paid vouchers but since there was no adjustment of the advance, it has been followed by withholding the pension and gratuity with other retiral benefits. The advance released is in respect of the year 2013-14 and according to the petitioner, the vouchers had been produced. In fact, the grievance of the petitioner is that the vouchers having been produced, the necessary adjustment against the advance should have been immediately made. As made to reveal from the record, the petitioner was directed by opposite party No.4 to furnish the physical vouchers. The necessary correspondences have taken place in between pending consideration of the representation of the petitioner. The demand has been in respect of the physical vouchers with the claim that it had not been produced by the petitioner. But from Annexure-14, this Court, while considering the plea of the petitioner was of the view that such demand of physical vouchers with the record for the year 2013-14 to be reconstituted nearly after seven to eight years is not possible especially when the concerned office and the Page 4 of 6 Officer in-charge should have taken the responsibility to act upon and to ensure the adjustment within the time stipulated. While disposing of W.P.(C) No. 16254 of 2022 by order dated 25th January, 2023 at Annexure-14, this Court in view of the directions issued in W.P.(C) No. 15412 of 2020 observed that opposite party No.4 was to reconcile the discrepancy within time line fixed. It is indeed quite impossible on the part of the petitioner to submit the physical vouchers, as in the meantime, he superannuated in the month of March, 2025. As rightly pointed out by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16254 of 2022 that the office concerned was primarily responsible to ensure that the physical vouchers are received from the petitioner at the earliest. Since it is claimed by the petitioner that all the bills/vouchers were produced, such demand after so many years with regard to the adjustment against the advance for the year 2013-14 is unjustified. At this distinct point of time, the petitioner is demanded to submit the physical vouchers and according to the Court, it would not practically be possible for him to comply. Rather, the claim of the petitioner is that all such bills/vouchers had been submitted and it was followed by the requests for adjustment against the advance received. It was also the bounden duty of the concerned official of the Office of the CDVO to ensure that necessary adjustment is made within time and without delay. Considering the materials on record and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties Page 5 of 6 and in view of the fact that the representation from the petitioner was received not once but twice and lastly, in the year 2023 at Annexure-11, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the petitioner ought not to have been demanded the production of the physical vouchers after so long for necessary adjustment against the advance taken by him and therefore, the impugned decision by order dated 23rd March, 2023 as per Annexure-15 cannot be sustained and hence, deserves to be interfered with. 6. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023 at Annexure-15 of opposite party No.4 is hereby quashed with a direction to the said authority to do the needful to ensure prompt release of the pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CUTTACK Date: 14-Jul-2025 16:42:09 (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 6 of 6