Disposed

Surendra Kumar Prusty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 May 2024WP(C)/851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed opposite parties to consider the petitioner's claim for retiral dues and pensionary benefits within two months. It ordered payment of 7% interest if delay was not the petitioner's fault, citing D.D. Tewari.

What did the court decide?

Direct the opposite parties to consider the petitioner's case for retiral dues and pensionary benefits within two months and pay 7% interest for delay.

Surendra Kumar Prusty Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.851 of 2024

¶2

Surendra Kumar Prusty

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Jaminikanta Das

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director Of Prisons And Represented By Adv. – Correctional Services, Bbsr S.Das, A.G.A.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

01.05.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the writ application as well as annexed thereto.

¶15

The Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer :

¶16

“The petitioner in view of the submissions made in the foregoing paragraphs prays that the writ application may be admitted, records be called for and after hearing be pleased to pass appropriate orders directing the Opp.Parties to release petitioner’s all the dues and further to pay interest on the financial dues illegally withheld by them as well

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

as be further pleased to award exemplary cost;

¶19

And /or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner initially joined as Sub Assistant Jailer on 02.02.1981 and posted as such in Nilagiri Sub-Jail. Thereafter, he was continuing in service and discharging his duties. Finally on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31^st August, 2017, the petitioner has retired from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no disciplinary proceeding/judicial proceeding is pending against the present petitioner. However, the petitioner has not been paid his retiral dues as well as the pensionary benefits. Being aggrieved by such inaction of opposite parties the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to office order dated 09.04.2024, submitted that the opposite parties have sanction a part of the claim of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite parties be directed to immediately calculate, sanction and disburse the retiral dues and the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner, along with interest, within a stipulated period of time.

¶21

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that he has no instruction in the matter. However, he further contended that if no proceeding is pending against the petitioner he is entitled to the admissible dues and such other benefits as per the rules. He further contended that the petitioner has already approached the

¶22

Page 2 of 4.

¶23

Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation on 05.03.2020 under Annexure-1 to the writ application and the Director of Prisons and Correctional Services, Odisha Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.2 on 04.11.2019. In such view of the matter learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in the event such representation is still pending, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite parties to consider such representation within a stipulated period of time strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and the laws.

¶24

Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court observes that the only grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that although the petitioner has retired from service since 2017, he has not been paid his retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner. Further, it appears from the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no proceeding, either departmental or judicial, is pending against the present petitioner. Thus the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as per law. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at this stage by directing the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that in the event it is found that the payment of such dues have been delayed due to no of fault on the part of the present petitioner then the Opposite Parties shall pay an interest 7% for the delay period as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (D) through L.Rs. vs. Uttar

¶25

Page 3 of 4.

¶26

Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd ., reported in 2015 (1) OLR (SC)-81 , Any decision taken by the authority shall be intimated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation the writ application stands disposed of.

¶28

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Judge

Rubi

Page 4 of 4.

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Couort of Orissa, Cutt ak Date: 03-May-2024 10:50:19

Surendra Kumar Prusty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Prusty v. State of Odisha

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

Gokulananda Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Krupasindhu Balabantaray Vs State of Odisha

Babaji Charan Swain Vs Baijayanti Mohanty

Puspanjali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Priti Sagar Shaw Vs State of Odisha

Gopinath Srichandan Vs State of Odisha