Kailash Chandra Behera State of Odisha and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OA) No. 1723 of 2007 Kailash Chandra Behera State of Odisha and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. R. Rath, Advocate Opposite parties Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
Decision
ORDER 06.01.2023 Order No. 02 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. R. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Collector Khurda dated 30.05.2007 under Annexure- 10 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest stating therein that the arrear exgratia claim of the petitioner has been worked out and drawn as per the instruction contained in Finance Department letter No. 18897/F dated 21.04.2007 and the fact of drawal has been duly intimated to the petitioner within the time limit earmarked by the learned Tribunal and as such, the delay is not intentional but for regularization of the past services of the petitioner. 4. Mr. R. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having taken VRS and the same having been accepted, he is entitled to get the legitimate dues within the time specified. As there is delay in payment of the legitimate dues of the petitioner, he is entitled to get interest @ 18 % in view of the judgment of this Court in Dhruba Charan Panda v. State of Orissa, OJC No. 6886 of 1999 disposed of 08.09.1999. It is further contended that despite the order passed by the Tribunal to pay the interest, the same has not been extended to him and Page 1 of 4 the same was rejected on the flimsy ground vide Annexure-10, which cannot sustain in the eye of law. 5. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State contended that in compliance to the order passed by the Tribunal, the benefit has been extended to the petitioner. Therefore, the question of grant of interest as claimed by him cannot sustain in the eye of law. More so, this benefit has been extended in terms of the clarification given by the Finance Department in its letter No. 18897/F dated 21.04.2007. Consequence thereof the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest cannot sustain and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that the petitioner retired from Govt. service w.e.f. 31.05.2003 under V.R.S. The pension paper of the petitioner was received from the DIPRO, Khordha on 15.09.2003 along with the proposal for sanction of provisional pension. On scrutiny of the service book, it was found that the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 27.12.1990 to 22.03.1992. The finding of the said suspension period was not recorded in the service book and the service verification was made without any remarks. For which the exgratia was not sanctioned and the DIPRO, Khordha was requested to clarify the position and the service book was returned. Simultaneously, the provisional pension and provisional gratuity were sanctioned vide District Officer order No. 2961 dated. 05.11.2003 and communicated to DIPRO, Khordha for disbursement. Although there was instruction to clear up all the claims within 60 days from the date of retirement, still in absence of relevant papers which was to be supplied by the concerned Head of Office, the provision could not be implemented. As per the instruction of Govt. in Finance Department memo dated 18.09.1962 in Appendix-11A of Orissa Service Code, a duplicate service book is to Page 2 of 4 be maintained and kept with the Govt. servant. It shall be his responsibility to ensure that his service book is kept updated. But the petitioner did not give due attention towards recording of finding of the Disciplinary Authority. So, the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay. Had the matter been regularized in the service book in the year 1993, then the question of delay would not have arisen after his retirement. As the irregularities were pointed out in the service book, the Head of Office, i.e. DIPRO, Khordha was requested vide District Office letter dated 26.09.2003 to clarify the position. The Establishment Officer, Puri intimated vide letter dated 10.11.2004, 18.04.2005 and 20.05.2005 that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Transport Commissioner, STA, Orissa Cuttack due to his involvement in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 75/90 dated 04.12.1990 under section 13 (2) read with 13 (1)(d) and 7 of the P.C. Act and the fate of the said case was to be ascertained and necessary follow up action taken. On the strength of the order passed by the tribunal dated 22.03.1993 in O.A. No. 2239/1992, the duty pay during the period of suspension has been drawn. After receipt of the said reply, the S.P. Vigilance Cuttack was requested vide letter dated 29.04.2006 to intimate the present position of the case. The S.P. Vigilance, Cuttack requested to S.P. Vigilance, Bhubaneswar vide his letter dated 10.05.2006 to intimate with regard to the present position. The S.P. Vigilance, Bhubaneswar intimated vide his letter dated 24.05.2006 that the trial of the case is in progress in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance Bhubaneswar and next date had been fixed to 01.06.2006. Since the petitioner was involved in a Vigilance Case and there was no regularization of service, therefore, the delay has been caused for payment of the legitimate dues of the petitioner and, as such, the same cannot be attributed Page 3 of 4 on the authorities so as to claim interest thereon. Had the services of the petitioner been regularized, he would have received the benefit much earlier in view of the judgment passed in Dhruba Charan Panda (supra). Due to non-payment of the dues, the petitioner filed representation and the matter was referred to the Finance Department seeking for clarification and on that basis, the Finance Department issued a clarification on 21.04.2007 stating that the arrear D.A. is admissible to the exgratia payment and so the balance amount of Rs.7,770/- was sanctioned towards arrear dues of exgratia payment vide office order dated 28.04.2007. 7. In view of such position since no delay can be attributable to the opposite parties and the service record of the petitioner has not been regularized, in that case, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest on the legitimate dues of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. Arun (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.) Page 4 of 4