The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAS) No.32 of 2018 Dr. Sarat Chandra Gountia Petitioner Mr. Sisir Kumar Purohit, Advocate …. -versus- State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and Others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.P. Panda, Additional Government Advocate Mr. S.K. Patra, counsel for O.P. No.4 CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
Decision
ORDER 25.9.2024 Order No. 14. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel for Accountant General (O.P. No.4). 3. The Petitioner joined as Assistant Surgeon on 14th August, 1979. While working at Community Health Centre (CHC), Fashimal, Sambalpur the Petitioner was relieved from the CHC on 10th November, 2005 on his transfer to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Redhakhol. These are the admitted facts. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he submitted his VRS on 10th November, 2005, i.e. after completion of service of 26 years. But till date his pension and pensionary benefits could not be finalized and not given. This is the grievance of the Petitioner. 4. As per the State authorities, it is stated in their counter that the Petitioner after his transfer on 10th November, 2005 did not join the Sub- Divisional Hospital, Redhakhol and remained unauthorizedly absent and abandoned his service. Therefore he is not entitled to get any pension or pensionary benefits. 5. According to Mr. Purohit, the Petitioner submitted his VRS application to the Director of Health Services on 10th November, 2005 through proper channel and subsequently also he submitted his pension papers to the Medical Officer-in-Charge of Fashimal, CHC which was sent to the Accountant General of Odisha, but returned with some queries in the year 2012 and till date the same has not been complied with by the authorities concerned, resulting withholding of such benefits till date. 6. On the other hand it is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned AGA that the Petitioner has not given his VRS application in terms of Rule 42 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 regarding his VRS to the appropriate authority and there is no proof on record regarding the averment of the Petitioner that he submitted such application to the appointing authority on 10th November, 2005. Therefore, if the submission and acceptance of the VRS to the appointing authority is absent on record, the Petitioner cannot claim any pension or pensionary benefits on account of his services rendered. 7. In view of the rival contentions, the question falls to decide is whether the Petitioner submitted the VRS application on 10th November, 2005 or he remained unauthorized absent from service thereafter. 8. The Director of Health Services and CDMO, Sambalpur have in their counter affidavits stated remained unauthorizedly absent from 11th November, 2005 without knowledge of the Petitioner that the authority and for the first time in the year 2015 he approached the authority for grant of pension in his favour claiming to have submitted the VRS application on 10th November, 2005. It is also stated that the Page 2 of 4 VRS application as per Annexure-3 dated 10th November, 2005 has not seen the light of day and has never been submitted to the authorities concerned at any point of time. It is further admitted in the counter affidavit that till date no disciplinary action has been initiated against the Petitioner for his unauthorized absent from service with effect from 11th November, 2005. 9. On verification of record, it is seen from Annexure-4 that the office of Principal Accountant General in their letter No.FMS.FD-9/1365 dated 10th November, 2012 has returned the pension papers of the Petitioner to the Medical Officer-in-Charge of Fashimal UGPHC with certain queries to comply with. So on the face of Annexure-4, the contentions made by the Opposite parties in their counter affidavits that the Petitioner has not communicated till the year 2015 and remained unauthorizedly absent from his service with effect from 11th November, 2005 are found false. It is for the reason that had he been unauthorizedly absent, he would not have submitted his pension papers to the Medical Officer of Fashimal UGPHC and the same would not have been forwarded to the office of Accountant General of Odisha. The return of pension papers under Annexure-4 further implies that the pension papers of the Petitioner have been duly accepted by the Medical Officer who is the immediate authority and has submitted through proper channel to the Office of the Accountant General. This substantiates the contention of the Petitioner that he submitted his VRS application on 10th November, 2005 as per Annexure-3 as claimed by him. Such presumption is further fortified from the fact that till date the authorities have not taken any action against the Petitioner for his alleged unauthorized absence from service with effect from 11th November, 2005. Page 3 of 4 10. It is true that the Petitioner is unable to produce any direct proof regarding service of his VRS application dated 10th November, 2005 to the authority concerned in terms of Rule 42 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. At the same time as stated above, the circumstances do justify the contention of the Petitioner with regard to his submission of VRS application on 10th November, 2005 to the authority through proper channel, which the Opposite Parties have failed to clarify. Further, the service of the Petitioner up to 10th November, 2005, i.e. for 26 years was unblemished as reveals from the counter affidavit of the Opposite Parties, and the same does not include any impediment for release of pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore it is concluded that the Petitioner has submitted his VRS application on 10th November, 2005, which may not have been accepted by the authorities till date nor has not been acted upon by the authorities till date. So he cannot be denied with the pension and pensionary benefits for the period of services rendered in Government. 11. In the result, the Opposite Parties are directed to release the pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner computing his period of service up to 10th November, 2005, in accordance with law and in terms of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and release the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. M.K. Panda Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2024 17:42:18 (B.P. Routray) Judge Page 4 of 4