Rita Priyadarsini Mohanaty Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶19

“The petitioner, therefore prays that your Lordship would be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the opposite parties and after hearing allow the writ petition thereby directing the opposite party No.3 to release the leave salary of the petitioner as earlier as possible by considering her grievance under Annexure-1 in the interest of justice;

¶20

And may pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the eye of law.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that

¶22

Page 1 of 3.

¶23

the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1986 by the Opposite Party No.3-Bank. Thereafter, he continued to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. Finally, the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2024 retired from service. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that although the petitioner has retired from service, however he has not been disbursed with the amount as is due and admissible towards his unutilised leave salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2023. He further contended that pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding would not stand in the way of the Opposite Parties to sanction and release the unutilised leave salary in favour of the petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sangram Keshari Mohanty vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.4066 of 2016 disposed of on 23.11.2023 as well as Chitaranjan Senapati v. State of Odisha and another in W.P.(C) No.20808 of 2024 vide judgment dated 06.03.2025. In the abovenoted two judgments this Court has categorically held that the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding shall not stand in the way of the Opposite Parties as the proceedings were not concluded prior to the retirement of the petitioner. It also appears that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board reported in Civil Appeal No.5848-49 of 2014. The disciplinary proceeding which was not concluded prior to the retirement of the petitioner cannot be continued against the petitioner. As such learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no legal bar in releasing the unutilised leave salary in favour of the present petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that

¶25

Page 2 of 3.

¶26

the Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner. He further submitted that a perusal of the writ application reveals that the petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a grievance petition dated 20.01.2025 under Annexure-1.

¶27

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as documents annexed to the writ application, further keeping in view the nature of the dispute involved in the present writ application, this court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of the judgment referred to hereinabove and dispose of the representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶28