Disposed

Soudamini Senapati v. Union of India.

Orissa HC15 Apr 2019WP(C)/19962/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, wife of deceased employee, sought quashing of pending disciplinary proceedings and immediate release of retirement dues. Court directed authorities to close proceedings within two months and adjust/Release dues thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Court directed authorities to close disciplinary proceedings within two months and release admissible dues after adjustment within four months.

Soudamini Senapati Vs Union of India. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 19962 of 2009

¶2

15.04.2019 Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Dash, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

¶3

The petitioner, being the wife of deceased employee-Shyam Sundar Senapati, has filed this writ application seeking following reliefs:-

¶4

“In the facts and circumstances of the case it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to issue a rule –nisi calling upon the O.Ps. to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceeding initiated pursuant to Annexure-4 and all consequential orders, if any, in the said proceeding shall not be quashed and why the O.Ps. shall not be directed to release the retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner forthwith without any deduction pursuant to any order in the disciplinary proceeding and further directing the O.Ps. to pay interest on the said retiral dues for the period of which the same has been withheld.

¶5

And if the O.Ps. show no cause or show insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to make the rule absolute and pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”

¶6

Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the retirement dues, as admissible to the deceased employee, having not been paid, she has approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶7

Mr. R.K. Dash, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3, by referring to the affidavit filed on 10.12.2017, contended that due to noncooperation of the deceased employee, the disciplinary proceedings, which had been initiated

¶8

against him, could not be completed and finalized, as a result thereof and in view of pendency of the present writ application, the authorities are not able to take any final decision in the matter. He has also referred to letter dated 07.12.2017 in Annexure-A series to justify his contention, in paragraphs 1 ad 2 whereof it has been mentioned as follows:-

¶9

“1. The first prayer in the writ petition is not maintainable since it is not employee but his wife who is not an employee has prayed the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and punishment yet to be imposed. The inquiry committee has not yet submitted its report and the disciplinary authority is yet to take a decision on the outcome of departmental enquiry.

¶10

2. Prayer no.2 is not maintainable since all dues accruing to the deceased employee i.e. husband of petitioner has already been released excepting a sum of Rs. 75,600/- which will be decided only after the departmental proceeding is over as the misconduct has a financial implication.”

¶11

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court directs that let the authority take a decision with regard to closure of the disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today, and in the event of closure of the departmental proceedings whatever admissible dues the petitioner will be entitled to, shall be released in her favour after adjusting the amount already paid. Needless to say, if the petitioner has got any other dues, she may make a grievance before the authority concerned by way of representation so that the same

¶12

can be considered in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be done within four months from the date of communication of this order.

¶13

With the above observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶14

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶15

GDS

Soudamini Senapati v. Union of India.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soudamini Senapati v. Union of India.

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

Sarat Ku.Mishra Vs State and Anr.

Bhuban Ku.Garnaik Vs State

Rabi Narayan Nayak Vs Regr.,Co-Op.Societie

Prafulla Ku.Behera Vs State

Pratap Ku.Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Nilakantha Rout Vs Gm,Ele,Cesu and Ors.