Disposed¶28

Karunakar Panda v. State of Odisha

Pension – Provisional pension

Orissa HC11 Mar 2025WP(C)/2248/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Provisional pension withheld after conviction in vigilance case; Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case no.14 of 2009; appeal CRLA No.586 of 2023 pending; letter dated 17.10.2023 under Annexure-4 by C.D.M & P.H.O., Kalahandi; prayer for mandamus to release provisional pension; direction to Opposite Party No.1 to decide and communicate to Opposite Party No.3 within six weeks; Orissa High Court, WP(C) No.2248 of 2024, Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, order dated 11.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the letter dated 17.10.2023 under Annexure-4 and communicate the same to Opposite Party No.3 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of the order. ¶28

Karunakar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.2248 of 2024

¶3

Karunakar Panda

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samarendra Mohanty

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties

¶8

Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

11.03.2025

Order No.

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

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

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

¶18

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, and issue Notice to the Opp. Parties under Rule NISI calling upon them to show cause, as to why the impugned letter under Annexure- 4 dtd 17.10.2023 issued by the C.D.M & P.H.O., Kalahandi shall not be quashed, and Opp. Party No. 3 shall not be directed by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing to release his provisional

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

pension.

¶21

And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause for the said Rule to be made absolute;

¶22

And any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) may kindly be passed as the Hon’ble Court considers fit and proper.”

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner, who is aged about 73 years and has retired from service since 30.06.2007, has approached this Court against the decision of the C.D.M. & P.H.O., Kalahandi in withholding his provisional provision. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner was entangled in a vigilance case bearing Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case no.14 of 2009. He further contended that although the Petitioner was receiving provisional pension after his retirement, however, the same has been withhold by the C.D.M. & P.H.O., Kalahandi, Opposite Party No.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to the letter dated 17.10.2023 written to the Opposite Party No.3 to the Opposite Party No.1, contended that awaiting instruction with regard to the payment of provisional pension to the Petitioner, the provisional pension has been stopped. He further contended that against the conviction of the Petitioner in the above noted vigilance case, the Petitioner has preferred an appeal bearing CRLA No.586 of 2023 before this Court. He further contended that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding. Therefore, till the appeal is finally decided, the Petitioner should have been extended with the benefit of provisional pension. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for a direction to the Opposite Parties to continue payment of

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

provisional pension to the Petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that after conviction of the Petitioner in the vigilance case, the payment of the provisional pension of the Petitioner has been stopped. He further contended that in the event any instruction has been received from the Government pursuant to the letter dated 10.10.2023 under Annexure-4, he has no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the letter dated 17.10.2023 under Annexure-4 and to communicate the same to the Opposite Party No.3 within a stipulated period of time.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid submissions and keeping in view the limited nature of grievance involved in the present writ petition, this Court disposes of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the letter dated 17.10.2023 under Annexure-4 and the same be communicated to the Opposite Party No.3 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order.

¶28