The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.47 of 2025 Suresh Chandra Dash ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Sangram Jena -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director Of Fisheries, Directorate Of Fisheries, Odisha 3) D.f.o., Ganjam 4) D.f.o., Sambalpur 5) Principal Accountant General (a And E) , Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms.Babita Kumari Sahoo, AGA
Decision
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 05.03.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer : “ It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to :- i) ii) iii) Admit the writ application. Call for the records. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs, direction/directions directing the Opposite Parties to release the regular pension and other retiral benefits like unutilised leave Page 1 of 5. salary, gratuity etc. in favour of the present Petitioner on account of his retirement along with accrued interest @ 18% keeping in view the law laid down in the case of D.S.Nakara vrs. Union of India reported in 1983(1) SCC205 and further necessary direction be issued to the the subsistence to release Opp.Party No.2 allowance in favour of the Petitioner during the period of suspension to 30.06.2010 keeping in view the recommendation made by the Opposite Party No.3 dated 10.11.2012 under Annexure-4 and the Petitioner may be extended with all other consequential service and retiral benefits including financial benefit as due and admissible within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. from 17.04.1990 iv) And/or pass order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.” other any 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Diarist-cum-Despatcher on 01.07.1971. Thereafter, the Petitioner was placed under suspension pending initiation of an enquiry on 13.12.1984. Subsequently the order of suspension was revoked. Again the Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 03.09.1985. Subsequently, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. As against the dismissal order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed on 10.09.1999. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner preferred O.A.No.2414 of 1999 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, vide order dated 18.12.2009, set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and the matter was remanded back to the Opposite Parties to re-enquire into the matter. Thereafter, the Petitioner was reinstated in service where he continued till his Page 2 of 5. retirement from service with effect from 30.06.2010 pursuant to the order under Annexurre-3 to the Writ Petition. 5. In the meantime the re-enquiry, which was ordered in the Disciplinary Proceeding, was conducted and the Disciplinary Proceeding culminated in imposing punishment against the Petitioner vide order dated 31.05.2011 under Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition. The Disciplinary Authority after re-enquiry imposed punishment to the effect that 10% of the Petitioner’s pension is to be withheld at least for one year and the suspension period is treated as such. He further contended that the Petitioner accepted the punishment imposed on him and no further appeal was preferred against such order dated 31.05.2011 under Annexured-5 to the Writ Petition. He further submitted that although the Petitioner has been extended with the benefit of provisional pension, however no final pension has been sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that vide letter dated 12.09.2024 under Annexure-9 the Additional Director of Fisheries in-charge (Admn.) has although written a letter to the District Fisheries Officer, Ganjam to take immediate steps to obtain the Service Book of the Petitioner and initiate action for preparation of pension papers. However, no action has been taken as of now. 7. Learned Additional Government advocate on the other hand contended that the letter dated 12.09.2024 under Annexure-9 reveals that steps have been taken for preparation of final pension papers of the Petitioner. Learned Additional Page 3 of 5. Government Advocate further submitted that the Petitioner should have approached the appropriate authority instead of approaching this Court. She also submitted that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party no.2 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time, she shall have no objection to the same. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful scrutiny of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition, keeping in view the letter under Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition and further taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties that the Petitioner has accepted the order imposing punishment under Annexure-5 and the same has attained finality, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to process the Pension papers of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that once the final pension papers have been prepared and forwarded to the appropriate authority, then necessary steps be taken for sanction and disbursal of the final pension and other retiral dues, if there is no other legal impediment to the same, within a period of two months from the date of taking such decision. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 4 of 5. Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Mar-2025 14:23:42