Ghana Shyama Jena Vs Chairman, Odisha Rural Housing and Development Corporation Ltd., Khurda

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶16

“The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court be

¶17

graciously pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs shall not be issued;

¶18

i) directing the Opposite parties to release the entire gratuity amount of petitioner of Rs. 5, 65, 488/-along with interest @ the rate of 14% per annum and also a direction may be issued to release other retirement dues, arrears salary etc. within a stipulated period.

¶19

ii) If the opposite parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute; and iii) To pass such other order/orders and to issue such other writ/writs as would afford complete relief to the petitioners.”

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that being aggrieved by the illegal action of Opposite Parties in

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

withholding the gratuity of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was employed under Tahasildar, Machhkund, Opposite Party No.6. While working as a Peon in the office of Opposite Party No.6. The petitioner had availed a loan from the Odisha Rural Housing Development Corporation. He further contended that such loan amount was deducted from his salary regularly and that the entire loan amount has been recovered from salary of the petitioner. However, the deducted amount has not been deposited with the Odisha Rural Housing Development Corporation. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have withheld the gratuity as is due and admissible to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that such withholding of gratuity, which is otherwise due and admissible to the petitioner in the event of his retirement, is highly illegal and arbitrary as the petitioner has already repaid the entire amount. He also contended that such amount needs to be reconciled by Opposite Party No.6.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that it appears that the petitioner has already approached the Opposite party No.6 by filing a representation on 26.09.2023 under Annexure-11 dated 01.09.2023. He further contended that upon reading the letter dated 26.09.2023 under Annexure-11, written by the Opposite Party No.6 to the Opposite Party No.4, it appears that the Opposite party No.6 has already intimated the fact that the entire loan amount has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner and the same has been deposited in the proper head of account of ORSDC Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that details of

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

such deduction may be forwarded by Opposite Party No.6 to the office of Opposite Party No.4, whereafter the amount of the petitioner can be reconciled and prayer of the petitioner for release of his gratuity benefits can be considered by the Opposite parties as per law.

¶27

Considering such submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, and keeping in view the letter dated 26.09.2023 under Annexure-11, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing both the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 6 to reconcile the loan account of the petitioner and in the event it is established that the entire amount has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner and there is no loan outstanding to the petitioner, then the Opposite Parties shall do well to release the gratuity of the petitioner along with interest on such delayed payment as is admissible under the rules within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision. Let the petitioner approach the Opposite Party Nos.4&6 receipts along with a certified copy of this order. On such appearance the Opposite Party Nos.4&6 shall do well to consider the case of the petitioner as has been directed hereinabove and any final decision taken in the matter shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶31

Digitally Signed Rubi Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Mar-2024 20:25:19

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Ghana Shyama Jena v. Chairman, Odisha Rural Housing and Development Corporation Ltd., Khurda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghana Shyama Jena v. Chairman, Odisha Rural Housing and Development Corporation Ltd., Khurda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Rajat Mohanty Vs Shallini Pandit, IAS

Arati Behera Vs Anu Garg, Development Commnr. Cum Addl. Chief Secy., Water Resources Dept.

Biswanath Dalei Vs State of Orissa

Kisu Jena Vs State of Odisha

Pintu Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Basudev Naik Vs State of Odisha