Disposed¶27

Prafulla Kumar Mallik v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC16 Dec 2025WP(C)/2829/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unutilised leave salary; rejection on pendency of Vigilance Proceeding; acquittal by Special Judge (Vigilance) Cuttack; TR/T.R. Case No.28 of 2012; Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2010; judgment dt.26.03.2025; impugned order dt.30.10.2023 under Annexure-10 quashed; Opposite Party No.1 directed to pass fresh order; six-week timeline; State of Odisha; W.P.(C) No.2829 of 2024; High Court of Orissa; Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; M.K. Balabantaray; P.K. Panda ASC; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order dt.30.10.2023 (Annexure-10) and direction to Opposite Party No.1 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law releasing the petitioner's unutilised leave salary within six weeks of receipt of the Court's order. ¶27

Prafulla Kumar Mallik Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of his unutilised leave salary, whose denial rested solely on the pendency of a Vigilance Proceeding, now that he stands acquitted in that proceeding.

¶16

Court's answer

Having regard to the petitioner's acquittal (judgment dt.26.03.2025 in TR Case No.28 of 2012 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2010), the sole ground on which his claim to unutilised leave salary was rejected is no longer sustainable.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dt.30.10.2023 issued under Annexure-10 is quashed.

¶23

Key takeaways

Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law for release of unutilised leave salary in favour of the petitioner, who may submit a copy of this Court's order together with the acquittal judgment for compliance.ratio¶26
The fresh order is to be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this Court's order.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.2829 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., order dt.16.12.2025): The petitioner's claim to the benefit of unutilised leave salary had been rejected by Opposite Party No.1 vide order dt.30.10.2023 (Annexure-10) solely on the ground that a Vigilance Proceeding was pending against him. The petitioner thereafter stood acquitted in that proceeding — T.R./TR Case No.28 of 2012 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2010, decided by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack, by judgment dt.26.03.2025. Holding that the sole ground of rejection was no longer sustainable, the Court quashed the impugned order, directed Opposite Party No.1 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law releasing the unutilised leave salary within six weeks of receipt of the order (the petitioner being permitted to furnish a copy of the order and the acquittal judgment for compliance), and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C )No.2829 of 2024

¶3

Prafulla Kumar Mallik

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶11

Order No.

¶12

ORDER 16.12.2025

¶13

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

¶14

2. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned counsel has entered appearance by filing his vakalatnama in Court. The same be kept on record.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging order dt.30.10.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of unutilised leave salary as due and admissible was rejected on the ground of pendency of a Vigilance Proceeding against the Petitioner.

¶17

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Vigilance Proceeding in the meantime has been disposed of by holding the Petitioner not guilty of the

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

charges and Petitioner has been acquitted in the said proceeding. Copy of the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) Cuttack in T.R. Case No.28 of 2012 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2010 so produced in Court be kept on record.

¶20

4.2. Learned counsel accordingly contended that since Petitioner has been acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding and that is the only reason of rejection, with regard to his rejecting his claim to get the benefit of unutilised salary, Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 be directed to release the unutilised leave salary in favour of the Petitioner.

¶21

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that if Petitioner has been acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding, let him make a fresh application before Opp. Party No.1 for re-consideration of his decision.

¶22

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of unutilised salary was rejected only on the ground that a Vigilance Proceeding is pending against the Petitioner vide the impugned order under Anexure-10. Since Petitioner has already been acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding vide judgment dt.26.03.2025 in TR Case No.28 of 2012 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 of 2010, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected is no more sustainable.

¶23

6.1. In view of the same, this Court while quashing the impugned order dt.30.10.2023 so issued under Annexure-10,

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

directs Opp. Party No.1 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law for release of unutilised leave salary in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the order of acquittal passed in the Vigilance Proceeding before Opp. Party No.1 for compliance. Such an order be passed within a period of 6(six) weeks form the date of receipt of this order.

¶27

6.2. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶28

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶29

sangita

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tack Date: 19-Dec-2025 16:02:04

¶32

Page 3 of 3