Adait Charan Bhol Vs State of Odisha

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

¶18

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

¶19

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Writ Petition may be allowed ; A) A writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Director, Panchati Raj and Drinking Water Department, Bnhubaneswar under Annexure-13 and necessary direction may be made to the Opposite Parties to grant final pension and Gratuity in fvour of the Petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the

¶20

Page 1 of 3.

¶21

delayed payment of Gratuity keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/S Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Employees Tate Insurance Corporation reported in AIR 2008 SC 3122, in the case of H.Gangahanume Gowda vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR 2003 SC 1526 , in the case of Vijay L.Mehortra vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2000(2) SLR 686 and by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Bishnu Charan Biswal vs. Secretary, Management Committee, Paradeep port Trust, Jagatsinghpur and another reported in 2023(l) ILR CUT 1200, within a time to be stipulated by this Court Hon’ble Court. B) And any other order/orders or direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the Petitioner.”

¶22

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties in sanctioning and disbursing the final pensionary benefit, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶23

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since a Disciplinary Proceeding which was initiated against the Petitioner under Rule-7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, is pending against him, such final pensionary benefit has not been sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in the matter. As such the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶24

Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties,

¶25

Page 2 of 3.

¶26

on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, keeping in view the limited nature of grievance involved in the Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties to make any endeavour to dispose of the Disciplinary Proceeding preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶27