The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 25349 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Dr. Lalatendu Kumar Aich …. Petitioner -versus- Govt. of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Ms. A.K. Dei, Advocate For Opp. Parties :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. C.K. Pradhan Addl. Govt. Advocate Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 26.11.2025 & Date of Judgment: 26.11.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Ms. A.K. Dei, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the // 2 // State-Opp. Party and Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under these circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a rule NISI, calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause as to why an appropriate writ/direction will not be issued directing the opposite parties to take immediate steps relating to gratuity and other retiral pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a specified period, and that the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the period from 30.06.2018 to the date of actual payment. If the opposite parties fail to show cause and/or insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute; And be further pleased to pass such other order/orders And/or issue such other direction/directions, as would deem fit and proper, And for which act of kindness the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that even though Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018, but because of the pendency of the vigilance proceeding in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01/2018, his retiral dues has not yet been released. 4.1. It is also contended that in the aforesaid vigilance proceeding since as on the date of retirement no charge sheet had been filed with taking of cognizance, in view of the provisions contained to the explanation to Page 2 of 8 // 3 // Rule 7(2)(b) of the OCS (Pension) Rules (in short Rules), it is to be held that no vigilance proceeding was pending against the Petitioner as on the date of retirement and accordingly Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all his retiral dues as due and admissible. Explanation to Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:- “Explanation-For the purpose of this rule,- (a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from the date of his suspension; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted,- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court.” 4.2. It is also contended that since Petitioner has not yet been released with the gratuity amount as due and admissible even though there is no judicial proceeding is pending against him in the eye of law, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 49(5) of the OCS (Pension) Rule, Page 3 of 8 // 4 // 1992, Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of interest @ 7% all through. Rule 49(5) of the Rules reads as follows:- “(5) (a) Where the sanction of payment of gratuity is delayed for more than a year from the date it is due under sub-rule (1) or (2) as the case may be, and such delay is attributable to administrative lapses, interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum for the period beyond one year shall be payable on the amount of gratuity: Provided that where a departmental or Judicial proceeding as the case may be, in respect of pensioner, is continued or initiated under rule 7, the gratuity shall become payable on the date finalisation of such proceedings and the period of one year shall be reckoned from the date. (b) The payment of interest on delayed sanction of gratuity shall be ordered by the Secretary of the concerned Administrative Department. (c) Where the Secretary of the Administrative Department as referred to in clause (b) is satisfied that the delay in sanction of gratuity has been caused on account of administrative lapses be shall sanction payment of interest so payable with the concurrence of the Finance Department and approval of the Government. (d) In every case where the interest is so sanctioned and is paid, the amount of such interest shall be recovered from the Pension Sanctioning Authority or the authority who is responsible for such delay. Page 4 of 8 // 5 // (e) No interest shall be Payable under this sub-rule where- (i) delay in sanction of gratuity is due to the failure on the part of the pensioner to comply for sanction of gratuity with the requirements provided in these rules. (ii) the amount of gratuity already paid to a pensioner is enhanced on account of retrospective revision of pay scale or emoluments or liberalisation of the rules affecting the quantum of gratuity consequent upon Government’s decision taken subsequent to the retirement of a Government servant. (f) The provisions of this sub-rule shall apply to- (i) all cases of retirement made or death occurred while in service on or after the date of commencement of these rules ; and (ii) cases where gratuity has become payable prior to the date of commencement of these rules but pending on the said date provided the period of one year referred to 33 in clause (a) shall be reckoned with effect from the date of commencement of these rules.” 4.3. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to release all the retiral dues of the Petitioner including the gratuity along with interest in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 49(5) of the Rules. Page 5 of 8 // 6 // 5. Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance) on instruction also fairly contended that even though the investigation has been completed, but awaiting sanction, final form has not yet been submitted against the Petitioner and his wife in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1 of 2018. It is also contended that even though sanction has been sought for since July, 2025, but no sanction has been accorded by the Govt. as yet. 6. Considering the instruction obtained by Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel, this Court passed the following order on 25.09.2025:- “2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to order dt.18.09.2025, Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Deptt. produced the instruction provided by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Balasore Division, Balasore vide his letter dt.23.09.2025. The same be kept on record. 4. Basing on the instruction, it is contended that in the aforesaid Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 dt.01.01.2018, after completion of the investigation, prima facie evidence has been found against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e ) of the P.C Act 1988 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, since sanction as requested has not yet been received, the Inquiry Officer is not in a position to file the charge-sheet. Page 6 of 8 // 7 // 4.1. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Deptt., list this matter in the week commencing 27.10.2025. 5. Considering the instruction provided by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Deptt, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is directed to obtain instruction in the matter as to whether necessary sanction has been given in the meantime or not. 6. This Court however appreciates the sincerity and promptness of Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Vigilance Deptt. in obtaining the required instruction at a very short notice and gives it a thumb of approval.” 7. Basing on the said order, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate fairly contended that as on date sanction has not yet been accorded. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. As on the date of his retirement in the vigilance proceeding so pending against him and his wife in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1/2018, no charge sheet had been filed with taking of cognizance. 8.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all his retiral dues in view of the Page 7 of 8 // 8 // provisions contained under the Explanation to Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules. 8.2. This Court is also of the view that, Petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 49(5) of the Rules, is entitled to get the benefit of interest @ 7% per annum on the retiral gratuity. While holding so, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to release all the retiral dues of the Petitioner as due and admissible including gratuity along with interest as provided under Rule 49(5) of the Rules. The entire benefits as due and admissible be sanctioned and released within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. However, such release of retiral dues along with interest shall be subject to final outcome of the vigilance proceeding so pending against the Petitioner.
Decision
9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 26th November, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 12:00:36 Page 8 of 8