Dismissed

Rasananda Rout v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC8 Sept 2016WP(C)/7513/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a Tribunal order directing pension disbursement. Since the petitioner relied on an impugned regularization order to seek the pension, the Court held he could not question its foundation and quashed his writ application.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal direction to regularize pensionary benefits shall be finalized within 4 weeks and arrears released within 2 months.

10. 08.09.2016 Heard Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the petiti oner and Mr. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. In the present writ application, the petitioner has sought to challeng e the order dated 02.03.2012 passed in O.A. No.2529(C) of 2009 under Annexure-5, whereby, the Tribunal had come to direct the opposite party to sanction and disburse the pensionary benefit s in favour of the applicant (petitioner herein) as per rules within a period of two months th ereafter.

Apart from challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petiti oner has also sought to challenge the order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the Inspector of School s, Kendrapara Circle, Kendrapara under Annexure-4 which admittedly was passed after the order of acquittal passed in the pending criminal case against the petitioner directing regularizati on of service by granting various types of leave that the petitioner was entitled to covering the entire period of suspension.

Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to Annexures-1 & 2 and submits that the petitioner had been suspended for the entire period in question by the direction issued by the appropriate authority. Consequently, after the order of acquittal was passed in G.R. Case No.1385 of 1997 vide judgment dated 21.02.2005, the manner in which the period of suspension has been dealt with while regularizing his servi ce under Annexure-4 are not in consonance with law. He also placed reliance on an earlier judg ment of this Court in the case of colleagues of the petitioner namely, Fakira Chandra Pradhan and Dayanidhi Nayak, who had approached this Court in O.J.C. No.6167 of 1994 and by order date d 11.03.1998 this Court allowed the said writ application by directing the authorities to trea t the period of suspension of the petitioners to be regularized in order to enable them to ear n their service benefits according to the relevant rules.

Mr. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Educat ion Department submits that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is factually distinct, inasmuch as, the petitioners therein though may have been colleagues of the present petitioner in the same school, yet, no charge sheet was filed against them, whereas, charge sheet was su bmitted against the present petitioner and he faced trial in the matter. He further points out that in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the applicant (petitioner herein) had hims elf placed reliance on the order of regularization under Annexure-4 which is also impugned her ein and basing reliance on the same, made a prayer before the Tribunal for necessary direction s to the opposite party to release his regular pension in view of the fact that the period of suspension has been regularized on the basis of the impugned letter under Annexure-4.

Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal has not yet been complied with and the petitioner though of advanced age, is continuing to receive provisional pension till date. On the other hand, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the S.M.E. submits that the order of the Tribunal has not been implement ed since the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same before this Court.

Having considered the submission advanced by the respective counsels a s noted hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the contention raised by the Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department in this respect is substantial. In other words, since the petitioner himself has sought to rely upon the very order of regularization o f his suspension period, vide order dated 03.12.2008 (which is Annexure-4 in the present writ application and impugned herein), he cannot be permitted to turn around and question the very foundation or basis on which prayer had been made by him before the Tribunal. Consequently, we find substantial force in this argument advanced by the Department.

Accordingly, we direct that the direction of the Tribunal insofar as r egularizing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are concerned shall be finalized within a period of four weeks from today. The arrears be computed and also be released in favour of t he petitioner within a period of two months thereof.

Rasananda Rout v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasananda Rout v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasmita Parida Vs State

M/S.Tata Metaliks Vs State

Prabhat Ku Das Vs Dy Registrar,Oat,Cuttack

M/S.Binapani Distributors,Balasore Vs Chief Manager-Cum-Ao,Uco Bank,Balasore

Durga Prasad Panda Vs Collector,Khurda

Sukanta Ku Dalai Vs Sbi,Madhupatna,Cuttack