Prasanta Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶19

The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party No.1, to release the pension, gratuity (DCRG) amount and unutilised leave salary benefits subject to the outcome of the vigilance proceeding vide Berhampur Vigilance Case No.63 of 2017, within a stipulated period of time.

¶20

Page 1 of 4.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that while the petitioner was working as Forest Range Officer, Buguda Range under the administrative control of the D.F.O., Ghumusar South Division, Bhanjanagar, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2019. He further submitted that after his retirement while the provisional pension and G.P.F. benefits were released in his favour, but the gratuity amount and unutilised leave salary have not been released on the ground of pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding against the Petitioner, vide Berhampur Vigilance P.S.Case No.63 of 2017, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur. He also contended that although the Petitioner has been retired from service on 31.10.2019, no Charge Sheet has been filed and no cognizance has been taken and also no summons have been issued against the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court by a Division Bench in W.A.No.2444 of 2024 (Sushant Kumar Sahu vs. State of Odisha) arising out of W.P.(C) No.20992 of 2023 decided on 04.09.2024. He also relied upon the clarification of Home Department dated 22.08.2024 under Annexure-3 series to the writ application. By referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court as well as the clarification of the Home Department, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that at the time of his retirement from service, neither any disciplinary proceeding was pending against him nor was any charge sheet filed against him in the judicial proceeding in shape of the vigilance case. Therefore, learned counsel for the

¶22

Page 2 of 4.

¶23

Petitioner contended that by applying the judgment of this Court in Sushanta Kumar Sahoo’s case ( supra) as well as the resolution of the Home Department, under Annexure-3 series, the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Party No.3, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has not received any instruction from the Opposite Parties. However, he further contended that on perusal of the writ application it appears that the petitioner has approached the Opposite party No.3 by filing the representation on 28.10.2024 under Annexure-3 series. He further contended that in the event the representation, as alleged by the petitioner, has in fact been filed and no decision has been taken thereon, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time.

¶25

Considering such submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the backgrounds facts as well as in materials placed before this Court for consideration, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the letter dated 22.08.2024 under Annexure-3 series as well as the judgment of this Court in Sushant Sahoo’s Case and dispose of the same within a

¶26

Page 3 of 4.

¶27

period of eight weeks from date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order by the petitioner, by passing a speaking and reasoned order and the final order passed thereon be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of taking such decision.

¶28

It is further directed that while considering the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 series dated 28.10.2024, the Opposite Party No.3 shall verify as to whether any proceeding in the shape of a Disciplinary Proceeding or judicial proceeding is pending against the Petitioner at the time of his retirement. In the event it is found that no Disciplinary Proceeding is pending on the date of retirement of the Petitioner from service and in the Vigilance case cognizance was not taken before retirement of the Petitioner from service, then the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner by applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Susant Sahoo’s case as well as the clarificatory letter dated 22.08.2024.

¶29

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶30

RKS

¶31

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Page 4 of 4.

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Feb-2025 11:29:19

Prasanta Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Sahoo @ Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Satyabrata Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Bikash Ranjan Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kabi Vs State of Odisha

Satyajit Patra Vs State of Odisha

Kartik Hazara Vs State of Odisha