Disposed

Param Biranjan Das v. State

Orissa HC17 Dec 2018WP(C)/10872/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged disciplinary proceedings and failure to implement retrial benefits after superannuation. Court dismissed relief regarding punishment but directed respondent to examine petitioner's service continuity until 2007 and pay due financial benefits if applicable.

What did the court decide?

Opposite party no.3 to examine if petitioner was continuing in post till 2007; if yes, calculate and disburse due financial benefits within four months.

Param Biranjan Das Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 10872 of 2007

¶2

17.12.2018 Heard Mr. S. Pattnaik appearing on behalf Mr. A.A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 3 and 4 and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶3

The petitioner has filed this application seeking for following relief:

¶4

“(i) the proceeding conducted against the petitioner shall not be held as illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law;

¶5

(ii) the order of punishment awarded against the petitioner dated 04.08.1992 under Annexure-2 by reverting him from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Tax Collector shall not be held as illegal and arbitrary;

¶6

(iii) the order passed by the Opp.party No.1 under Annexure-11 shall not be quashed as illegal and arbitrary;

¶7

(iv) a direction shall not be issued to make a fresh enquiry against the present petitioner in accordance with the law. (v) A direction shall not be issued that the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in the post of the Senior Assistant and is entitled to all the consequential service benefits thereof till outcome of the fresh enquiry.

¶8

(vi) Any other order/orders, direction/direction, shall not be passed which would be deemed fit and proper;

¶9

Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Annexure-11 though specific direction has been given for fresh enquiry, but till date fresh enquiry has not been started and direction has been given to opposite party to start a fresh enquiry. Such order having been passed on 26.10.2006 the same has not been complied with. It is further contended that in

¶10

the meantime, the petitioner has superannuated from service in the year 2007 on attaining the age of superannuation, but retrial benefit has not been paid till date.

¶11

Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 3 and 4 contended that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier with self same prayer by filing W.P.(C) No. 1154 of 2004. The prayer made in that writ application is quoted as follows:

¶12

“(a) It shall not be de declared that the proceeding conducted against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, perfunctory and not in accordance with law;

¶13

(b) the order of punishment awarded against the petitioner dated 4^th August, 1992 in Annexure-2 by reverting him from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Tax Collector shall not be held as illegal and arbitrary;

¶14

(c) the order passed by the Revisional Authority and the Appellate Authority in upholding the order of punishment and rejecting the appeal and the review petition shall not be held as illegal and arbitrary; (d) It shall not be directed that the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in the post of Senior Assistant and is entitled to all the consequential service benefits thereof;

¶15

(e) Any others or directions shall not be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

It is further contended that by order dated 26.07.2007 the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file better application on the memo of withdrawal filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed with self same prayer on 30.08.2007. Therefore, since the petitioner had faced with a disciplinary proceeding, whereby he was reverted

¶17

from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Tax Collector and against the said order, he has preferred appeal and revision and both the forum have confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 1154 of 2004 and the same was withdrawn to file better application, but on perusal of the present writ petition, it is not way better application than earlier one. The present writ petition relief is in a couched manner, which cannot sustain in the eye of law.

¶18

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records it appears that against the order of disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal and the order of disciplinary authority was confirmed by the appellate authority, against which the petitioner preferred revision and the same was also made confirmed by the revisional authority. Challenging the said order of the appellate authority and revisional authority, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1154 of 2004, which was disposed of as withdrawn on the memo of withdrawal filed by the petitioner with a liberty to file a better petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed with the self same prayer along with to quash Annexure11, whereby the State Government has directed to the authority to make fresh enquiry, and the same have not been conducted till now. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that till date since fresh enquiry has not been conducted, he has prayed to quash Annexure-11. But in the present case to quash the Annexure-11 will not have any helpful to the petitioner. Therefore, the

¶19

prayer made in this writ application is a misconceived one. As the order of punishment has been made confirmed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority and the petitioner has withdrawn the W.P.(C) No. 1154 of 2004, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same at this stage.

¶20

In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was continuing in the post till 2007, till that date retrial benefit has not been extended to him. Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 submits that if the petitioner was continuing till 2007, then the retrial benefit admissible to the petitioner may be considered in accordance with law.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite party no.3 to examine as to whether the petitioner was continuing till 2007 or not. If the petitioner was continuing till 2007, then the opposite party no.3 shall calculate the financial benefit as due and admissible to him in accordance with law and disburse the same within a period of four months.

¶22

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

…………………………… Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J

¶24

Ajaya

Param Biranjan Das v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Param Biranjan Das v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gouri Sankar Adhek Vs Secretary

Ganapati Dakua Vs State of Odisha

Siba Pr.Behera Vs State

Lambodara Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Smt. Amrita Haldar Vs State of Odisha and Others

Satyajit Samantaray Vs State of Orissa