Dismissed

State of Odisha v. Bimbadhar Sahoo

Orissa HC14 Jul 2017WP(C)/13862/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking relief regarding the non-disbursement of pension. The Court held that since final punishment had not been passed and the employee was not yet held guilty, Rule 7 of the Orissa Pension Rules did not justify withholding benefits. The appeal to Article 227 jurisdiction was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands dismissed; no order to disburse pension given as proceedings pending.

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner. As it appears this Court vide order dated 24.10.2016 observed as follows. Mr. Sahoo submits that so far as Departmental Proceeding No. 16064/PR dated 27 .11.2003 is concerned, though it is tentatively decided not to impose any penalty on opposite party no.1-applicant, the matter is still not concluded in view of ongoing consultation with t he OPSC.

As an interim measure, we direct that the said consultation process be conclud ed within a period of six weeks from today and the result thereof be intimated to this Court b y way of an affidavit on the next date.

On the last occasion also, i.e. on 03.07.2017, on the prayer made by learned A dditional Government Advocate to obtain instruction from O.P.S.C. and to implead O.P.S.C. as a party, the matter was adjourned to 14.07.2017. Instead of impleading O.P.S.C. as a party and obtaining instruction from O.P.S.C., today also, when the matter is taken up, learned Addition al Government Advocates prayed for time.

We deprecate such type of prayer made by learned Additional Government Advocat e. When the issue in question has a bearing to the pensionary benefits of a retired government employee, such types of plea on the part of the government is not appreciable.

So far as the reference made by the Tribunal of the provision of Rule 66, the same pertains to disbursement of provisional pension in favour of the employee against whom a departmental or judicial proceeding is pending, the issue raised by

Otherwise also, even on merit the State of Odisha has no case in view of the s pecific provision of Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules which confers power upon the Government the right of withholding of pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in part, or withd rawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for as specified period and of ord ering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in duty during the period of his service.

Admitted position in this case is that the final order of punishment has not y et been passed against the petitioner even as on date, since according to the State, the matte r is pending before the O.P.S.C. for concurrence of the decision taken by the disciplinary aut hority. Hence it is evident that the petitioner has not yet been held guilty in the departmen tal proceeding and in view thereof, under the provision of Rule 7 of the Orissa Pension Rule, decision of the authority not to disburse pensionary benefits is not proper.

This issue has been settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State o f Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 dealing with the provision under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which is parameteria to Rule 7 of the Orissa Pension Rule.

That apart, this Court also went through the impugned order. As it appears, the Tribunal has discussed all the relevant materials available before i t and since the Statutory provision has not been complied with, it has passed the reasoned ord er.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

State of Odisha v. Bimbadhar Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Bimbadhar Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayasmita Dash Vs C.P.M.G.,Orissa Cir.

Bansidhar Bag Vs State and Ors.

J.K.Paper Mills Vs State

Padmanav Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Rourkela Shramki Sangha Vs Sail and Anr.

Parsuram Jena Vs Union of India