The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20395 of 2021 Sri Laxman Kumar Sarangi -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. C.S. Panda, Advocate State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel for O.P. No.4 CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 04.01.2024 06. 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 appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the materials on record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased Admit the writ application, to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not // 2 // allowed, upon showing insufficient casue/no cause maek the said Rule absolute, issue writ/writs in the nature of - Mandamus directing the opp. Party No.1 & 2 to take appropriate action regular pension with other retirement benefits within the period stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. And the Opp. Parties may be directed to grant and pay penal interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits @ 12% per annum. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, this direction/directions order/orders, Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.” as 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the illegal and arbitrary action of the Opposite Parties in not granting the financial as well as the retiral and pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has been entangled in a vigilance case as well as in a departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.3.2020. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to get his retiral benefits as well as pensionary benefits by considering the status as on 31.3.2020. Further, referring to the judgment of this Court in State of Odisha and others v. Sushanta Chandra Sahoo and others // 3 // (W.P.(C) No.14718 of 2015 decided on 06.05.2022), learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on the date of retirement of the Petitioner there is no departmental proceeding against the Petitioner which was admittedly initiated on 30.06.2020. He further contended that the vigilance case, in which, the Petitioner has been entangled is still pending and no charge sheet has been filed as of now. 5. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner filed xerox copies of the order sheets of the court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in VGR No.08 of 2017 along with a memo. On perusal of the said order sheets, it appears that no final form has been filed as on 22.8.2023. In such view of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra). 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that in view of Rule-66 of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992, the Opposite Parties have rightly withheld the retiral as well as pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. He further contended that in view of the aforesaid rule, the Petitioner is only entitled to the provisional pension on the basis of the last pay drawn till the proceedings are // 4 // concluded. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate in course of his argument drawing attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Parties, emphatically submitted that the Petitioner is not only facing a criminal case, a disciplinary proceeding has also been initiated against the Petitioner for his alleged misdeeds. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the conduct of the Opposite Parties in not sanctioning and releasing the pensionary as well as retiral benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner in view of the provision contained in Rule-66 of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992. Accordingly, it was submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the pleadings as well as upon careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for parties and on examination of the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the only question that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is with regard to the entitlement of the Petitioner to the retiral as well as pensionary benefits. In the factual background of the present case, this Court is also of the considered view that the case of the Petitioner is to be examined in the light of the Rule-66 // 5 // of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992. On a careful analysis of the judgment of this Court in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra), this Court found that Rule-66 of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992 has been elaborately discussed and analyzed by a Division Bench of this Court and, accordingly, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has laid down the ratio applicable to the facts involved in similar cases. In such view of the matter, this Court by taking note of the fact that on the date of retirement of the Petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding was not in existence as the same was initiated subsequently and further taking into consideration the fact that as on date, no charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the pendency of the aforesaid two proceedings shall not stand as a bar in consideration of the case of the Petitioner for grant of retiral as well as pensionary benefits as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra). 9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra). Accordingly, if the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are come to a conclusion that on the date of retirement of the Petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding was // 6 // not in existence and no charge sheet was filed and no cognizance was taken in the criminal case, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall do well to extend the benefits to the Petitioner as has been done in the case of Sushanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 08-Jan-2024 11:34:43