The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19145 of 2025 Gunanidhi Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 08. 1. This matter ORDER 31.10.2025 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Pursuant to order dated 27.10.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by O.P. No.2 in Court today. The same be kept in record. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- <It is prayed therefore that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to: (i) (ii)
Decision
Admit the Writ Petition. Call for the records. // 2 // (iii) Issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order of the Director dated 06.03.2024 under Annexure-2 shall not be quashed being illegal and a further direction shall not be issued to the Opp. Parties to release the benefits the petitioner under Annexure-6 within a stipulated time. to the If the Opp. Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause the writ petition may be impugned order dated allowed and 06.03.2024 (Annexure-2) may be quashed and writ of mandamus be issued to the Opp. Parties to recall the service benefits to the petitioner as calculated by the petitioner under Annexure-6 within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.= 5. It is contended that petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 28.10.1993 on the ground of misappropriation of Govt. money vide order under Annexure-1. While continuing under suspension, petitioner was allowed to retire from his services w.e.f. 31.03.1999, on attaining the age of superannuation. 5.1. However, on the ground that Criminal Proceeding as well as Departmental Proceeding are pending against the petitioner, petitioner was not released with his retiral benefits save and except, the Provisional Pension in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(d) of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short Rules). Page 2 of 9 // 3 // 5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on similar charges, not only a Criminal Proceeding was initiated vide Madhupatna P.S. Case No.258 dated 28.10.1993, but also the Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him vide Departmental Proceeding No.4/1996. It is however contended that, the Departmental Proceeding was finalized vide order dated 20.05.2005, wherein petitioner was held guilty and imposed with the punishment of recovery of Rs.3,57,295/- from his pensionary benefits. 5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of the finalization of the Departmental Proceeding with the punishment so imposed and consequential recovery of the amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, the other retiral benefits as due and admissible including the Final Pension was never released on the ground that the Criminal Proceeding so initiated in Madhupatna P.S. Case No.258 dated 28.10.1993 remain pending. 5.4. It is however contended that even though the Criminal Proceeding was initiated on 28.10.1993 but by the time petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.1999, neither charge-sheet had been filed nor any cognizance had been taken. It is accordingly contended that by the Page 3 of 9 // 4 // time petitioner retired from his services, since in the Criminal Proceeding neither charge-sheet had been filed nor cognizance had been taken, after finalization of the Departmental Proceeding vide order dated 20.05.2005, petitioner should have been released with the retiral benefits and other admissible entitlements after making recovery of Rs.3,57,295/- along with Final Pension. 5.5. It is contended that claiming release of the benefits, petitioner moved the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2999(c) of 2013. The said application however was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023 by permitting the petitioner to move O.P. No.2 by making a representation. 5.6. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed on 18.12.2023, petitioner moved a representation on 09.01.2024 by making the following claim:- “1. Subsistence allowance with effect 28.10.1993 to 27.10.1994 @ Rs.780/- per month. from 2. Subsistence allowance @ 100% with effect from 28.10.1994 to 31.12.1995. 3. Subsistence allowance @ Rs.4750/- per month with effect from 01.01.1996 till retirement. 4. Leave salary in lieu of commutation of HPL. 5. Payment of gratuity as per Government rules. 6. Payment of pension from March’ 1999 to March’ 2024. Page 4 of 9 // 5 // 7. Commutation of Pension as per OCS(Pension) Rules. Include the period of suspension 8. from 28.10.1994 to March 1999 for calculation of pension. 9. Enhancement of Pension @ 20% on attaining the age of 80 years. 10. Payment of arrear of DA as enhanced from time to time. 11. Payment of 10% interst on the abvoe dues.= 5.7. However, claim of the petitioner as made in his representation dtd.09.12.2024, was rejected vide the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 under Annexure-2, inter alia on the ground that the Criminal Proceeding has not yet been disposed of and petitioner is not eligible to get the other benefits as claimed. 5.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the office Memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 29.05.2025, contended that while amending the provisions contained under Rule-7(2) of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992, it has now been held that regular pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits can be sanctioned if Magistrate has not taken cognizance on the charge-sheet filed in a Vigilance Case. 5.9. Placing reliance on the aforesaid office Memorandum, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since in the aforesaid Criminal Case in Page 5 of 9 // 6 // Madhupatna P.S. Case No.258 dated 28.10.1993, cognizance has not been taken as yet on the face of submission of the charge-sheet on 02.12.2000 as indicated in the instruction, rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated therein vide the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 under Annexure-2 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5.10. It is also contended that petitioner though has retired since 31.03.1999, but save and except the Provisional Pension, he has been deprived to get other retiral benefits including Final Pension and now he has already attained the age of 80 years. It is accordingly contended that while quashing the impugned order, appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 to release the retiral benefits as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner along with Final Pension and other admissible dues within a stipulated time period. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on the instruction contended that since on the date of the retirement of the petitioner on 31.03.1999 while continuing under suspension w.e.f. 28.10.1993, both Departmental and Criminal Proceedings were pending against the petitioner, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(d) of the Rules, petitioner was released with the Provisional Pension. It Page 6 of 9 // 7 // is however fairly contended that Departmental Proceeding was disposed of vide order dated 20.05.2005 with punishment of recovery of Rs.3,57,295/- and the said amount has already been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. 6.1. It is however contended that since the Criminal Proceeding so initiated in Madhupatna P.S. Case No.258 dated 28.10.1993 is pending against the petitioner with filing of the charge-sheet on 02.12.2000 and the proceeding has not yet been disposed of, petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 under Annexure-2. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2 as a Senior Assistant-cum-Cashier (Stationary), he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 28.10.1993 vide order under Annexure-1. While continuing under suspension, petitioner was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.1999. However, on the ground of pendency of the Criminal Proceeding as well as the Departmental Proceeding vide D.P. No.4/1996 and Madhupatna P.S. Case No.258 dated 28.10.1993, petitioner was not released with his retiral benefits save and except, the Page 7 of 9 // 8 // Provisional Pension along with some other financial benefits. 7.1. However, it is found that the Departmental Proceeding was disposed of vide order dated 20.05.2005 with punishment of recovery of Rs.3,57,295/- and the amount which is not dipsuted has been recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. It is also found that in the criminal proceeding in Madhupatna P.S. Case No.258 dated 28.10.1993, though charge-sheet has been filed since 02.12.2000, but there is no material placed before this Court, showing cognizance has been taken against the petitioner as yet. 7.2. Considering the fact that petitioner has retired since 31.03.1999 and the Departmental Proceeding has been finalized vide order dated 20.05.2005, with no cognizance having been taken in the Criminal Proceeding as yet, placing reliance on the amended provision of Rule 7(2) of the Rules so notified vide Notification issued by the Finance Department on 29.05.2025, this Cout is of the view that the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while quashing order dated 06.03.2025 so issued by O.P. No.2 under Annexure-2, this Court directs O.P. Nos.1 and 2 to Page 8 of 9 // 9 // release the retiral benefits as due and admissible including Final Pension and other admissible dues in favour of the petitioner. This Court directs O.P. Nos.1 and 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Nov-2025 17:35:15 Page 9 of 9