The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.20452 of 2025 Indulata Patra …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mekap, Adv. State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 3. 24.09.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement ORDER (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Pursuant to order dt.29.07.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by the Chief District Agriculture Officer, Dhenkanal vide his letter dt.22.09.2025. The same be kept on record. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above the Petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this case after hearing both the sides may be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other writ or direction which will deem fit and proper to this case by directing Opp. Party No.1 Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. Of Odisha from 06.05.1996 to 04.10.2000 till his retirement, to disburse monthly salary // 2 // from benefit pensionary to 16.05.2024 till death and family pension from 16.05.2024 to till now taking into account letter No.1503 dtd.22.06.2002 of Opp. Party No.2 with interest of justice and equity; 04.10.2000 And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner’s late husband while in service, a Proceeding was initiated against him under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 vide Proceeding No.1086 dt.23.02.1993. It is contended that in the said proceeding, the Inquiry Officer after conducting the Inquiry submitted the report under Annexure-2 with the following finding: (i)Misappropriate Rs.2,73,137.64p may be through coercive measure. money of recovered (ii) the period of suspension may be treated as such . 5.1. It is contended that without following the provisions contained under Rule-15 of the Rules with issuance of the 1st and 2nd show-cause, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Dy. Director of Agriculture, Dhenkanal-Opp. Party No.3 passed the order of punishment by removing the deceased employee from his services with effect from the date of the order and held the deceased employee liable to pay the mis- appropriated amount of Rs.2,73,137.64p vide order dt.06.05.1996 under Annexure-3. 5.2. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Page 2 of 7 // 3 // Annexure-3, the deceased employee moved the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2. Opp. Party No.2 vide Office Order dt.22.06.2002 under Annexure-4, set aside the order of punishment and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.3 for fresh disposal of the Proceeding in accordance with law. 5.3. It is contended that after such remand of the matter, the Proceeding was never taken up nor disposed of in accordance with law afresh and by the time such order of remand was passed, the deceased-employee had attained the age of superannuation also on 31.10.2000. It is contended that after remand, neither the Proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules”), nor it was disposed of afresh in terms of the order passed by Opp. Party NO.2 under Annexure-4 on 22.06.2002. It is further contended that during pendency of the proceeding, late husband of the Petitioner died on16.05.2024 as found from Annexure-5. 5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that since after remand of the matter vide order dt.22.06.2002, the Proceeding was never disposed of in accordance with law till the deceased employee died on 16.05.2024, the said Proceeding is to be treated as lapsed. The deceased employee accordingly became eligible and entitled to get all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to him till he died on 16.05.2024. Not only that Petitioner being the wife of Page 3 of 7 // 4 // the deceased employee became eligible to get family pension from the date of death of the deceased employee. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s late husband be sanctioned with pension and pensionary benefits as due and admissible from the date of his retirement till he died on 16.05.2024 and the family pension as due and admissible be sanctioned in favour of the present Petitioner from 17.05.2024 to till date. The deceased employee by the time, he was removed form service vide order dt.06.05.1996 under Annexure-3 had already rendered more than 25 years of qualifying service and because of the quashing of the order of punishment of removal vide order dt.22.06.2022, the deceased employee is to be treated as on duty till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2000. Considering the stand taken in the Writ Petition, this Court passed the following order on 29.07.2025.
Decision
Order 29.07.2025 1. This matter Arrangement (Virtual/Physical)m Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. is taken up through Hybrid 3.Considering the nature of claim made by the Petitioner and the order available at Annexure-4, this Court directs learned Addl. Govt. Advocate to obtain instruction as to whether after remand of the matter vide the said order, proceeding was again disposed of with passing of any order against the delinquent employees. 4.As requested, list this matter in the week commencing 18.08.2025. 6. Basing on the said order, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that the proceeding file is not available at present Page 4 of 7 // 5 // and another two (2) months time be allowed to collect the information. Instruction provided by the Chief District Agriculture Officer, Dhenkanal reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx With due respect, I am to bring your kind notice that, all the required information could not be collected from other offices related to the above said case matter. Therefor,e I may please be allowed 2 months (minimum) time period for collecting the required information in respect to said case to put forth before the Hon’ble Court. This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action. xxx xxx xxx 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that deceased employee while in service, a proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 vide Proceeding No.1086 dt.23.02.1993. As found, in the said proceeding, the Inquiry Officer while submitting the report under Annexure-2 on 16.06.1994, gave a opinion to treat the period of suspension as such and to recover the mis-appropriated amount of Rs.2,73,137.64p. 7.1. As found, Opp. Party No.3 without following the provisions contained under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 with issuance of the 1st and 2nd show-cause and taking into account the finding of the Inquiry Officer passed the order of punishment by removing the deceased employee Page 5 of 7 // 6 // from his services vide order dt.06.05.1996 under Annexure- 3 and the deceased employee was also held liable to pay the mis-appropriated amount of Rs.2,73,137.64. 7.2. As found, the deceased employee challenging such order of punishment, moved the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2. Opp. Party No.2 vide his order dt.22.06.2002 under Annexure-4, while setting aside the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide his order dt.06.05.1996, remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. By the time such an order of remand was passed on 22.06.2002, which is not disputed, the deceased employee had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2000. Since after such remand of the matter, the Proceeding was never taken up nor disposed of in accordance with law and the deceased employee in the meantime died on 16.05.2024, Petitioner who happens to be the wife of the deceased employee has filed the present Writ Petition within a prayer to sanction and disburse all service and financial benefits as due to the deceased employee, along with the family pension in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f 17.05.2024. 7.3. Considering the fact that after remand of the matter vide order dt.22.06.2002, the Proceeding was never taken up nor disposed of till the deceased employee died on 16.05.2024, it is the view of this Court that the Proceeding so initiated against the deceased employee stands lapsed and the deceased employee is required to be treated as a retired employee w.e.f 31.10.2000. The break period of Page 6 of 7 // 7 // service from the date of dismissal till 31.10.2000 be regularised on notional basis. 7.4. Therefore, while holding so, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to take appropriate step for sanction of pension as due and admissible to the deceased employee from November, 2000 till he died on 16.05.2024 along with the retiral Gratuity and other pensionary benefits. This Court also held the present Petitioner who happens to be the wife of the deceased employee entitled to get the benefit of family pension w.e.f 17.05.2024. 7.5. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to sanction and release the pension, Gratuity and other retiral benefits as due to the deceased employee by taking his date of retirement as 31.10.200 and the family pension in favour of the Petitioner with effect from 17.05.2024. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7.6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:51:47 Page 7 of 7