The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.42698 of 2023 Prafulla Kumar Satapathy …. Petitioner Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 07.02.2024 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, instruction provided by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate be kept in record. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: - <It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to; i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the record. iii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties more particularly Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to show cause as to why the impugned // 2 // orders dated 31.07.2008, 04.09.2023 and 21.09.2023 under Annexure-12, 10 & 11 shall not be quashed. iv) If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show the rule insufficient cause, make absolute by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/writs, order/orders by quashing dated impugned 31.07.2008, 04.09.2023 and 21.09.2023 under Annexure-12, 10 & 11. orders the v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs, direction/directions directing the opposite parties more particularly the Opp. Party No.2 and 3 to extend/pay the provisional pension, final pension and other retiral dues as due and admissible to the present petitioner within a reasonable to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.= time 5. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner while continuing as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in the establishment of O.P. No.3, he was issued with a notice on 31.07.2008 vide Annexure-12 proposing therein to terminate him from his services within 30 days from the issue of the letter. 5.1. It is contended that challenging the notice issued on 31.07.2008, petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.2200(C) of 2008. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.09.2008 under Annexure-13 while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order directing therein maintenance of status-quo. By virtue of the interim order so passed, petitioner was not only allowed to continue but also he was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2019 vide order dated 30.06.2019 of O.P. No.3 under Annexure-8. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 5.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the petitioner at no point of time in terms of the notice issued under Annexure-12 was terminated and he was allowed superannuate from his services w.e.f. 30.06.2019, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. However, after retirement when Petitioner was not released with the benefit, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.36288 of 2022. This Court when directed O.P. No.3 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim, the impugned order dated 04.09.2023 under Annexure- 10 was passed. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that petitioner since has been terminated from his services w.e.f. 20.09.2008, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension. The claim of the petitioner with regard to sanction of provisional pension was also rejected by O.P. No.2 vide his communication dated 21.09.2023 under Annexure-11, by taking similar plea that petitioner since has been terminated w.e.f. 20.09.2008, he is not eligible to get the said benefit. 5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since by virtue of interim order, petitioner continued in his service till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2019 and at no point of time petitioner was issued with the order of termination save and except the notice issued under Annexure-12, petitioner is Page 3 of 5 // 4 // eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefit as due and admissible. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the instruction so provided by the O.P. No.3. Though in the instruction stand has been taken that petitioner was terminated from his services w.e.f. 20.09.2008, but no such order of termination is enclosed to the instruction. It is however fairly contended that petitioner at no point of time was terminated from his services with issuance of a formal order on 20.09.2008. However, it is contended that since petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1973(C) of 1993 was issued with the notice of termination on 31.07.2008, it is to be held that petitioner is a terminated employee and he is not eligible to get the benefit as claimed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner while in service, he was issued with the notice of termination on 31.07.2008 under Annexure-12. The same when was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. No.2200(C) of 2008, the Tribunal vide order dated 23.09.2008 under Annexure-13 passed an interim order directing for maintenance of status-quo. As found from Annexure-8, petitioner was not only allowed to continue but also he was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age Page 4 of 5 // 5 // of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2019. In view of such position which is not disputed, it is to be held that the petitioner continued in his service without being issued with any order of termination till he retired on 30.06.2019. Therefore the ground on which the claim of the petitioner to get benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as well as Provisional Pension has been rejected vide order dated 04.09.2023 under Annexure-10 and 21.09.2023 under Annexure-11 are not sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing both the order, this Court directs O.P. No.3 to release the pension and pensionary benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Feb-2024 18:26:43 Page 5 of 5