Kanchanbala Nayak Vs State of Odisha

“It is therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice and after hearing the parties, direct the Opp. Party No.1 to drop all pending disciplinary proceedings against the deceased husband of the Petitioner and consequently, disburse the Final Pension, other retirement benefits due and payable to the Petitioner's deceased husband along with accrued interest in favour of the Petitioner;

¶21

And may pass any other order(s), direction(s), relief(s) as deem fit and proper;

¶22

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that

¶24

Petitioner who happens to be the wife of the deceased employee is before this Court in the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer, as after the death of the deceased employee on 04.05.2023, the Opp. Parties are not releasing the retiral benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner from the date of her retirement.

¶25

4.1. It is contended that such benefit has been withheld because of the

¶26

pendency of 4 (four) nos. of proceeding against the deceased employee

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

// 3 //

¶29

so initiated vide Memorandum No.6292/PR./ dt.18.05.1993, 7780/PR/ dt.06.07.2004, 978/RCS/dt.10.04.2007 and 424 RS/dt.19.03.2009.

¶30

4.2. It is contended that since during pendency of the aforesaid four (4) proceedings, the deceased employee died on 04.05.2023, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) through LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022) decided on 28.09.2022, all the proceedings stand abated. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 7, 8 & 9 of the decision has taken the following view:-

¶31

“7. Admittedly, no final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, before the death of the original appellant. Though the order of remand passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is dated 02.02.2015, the Disciplinary Authority could not perhaps pass the final order, due to the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and the pendency of the above appeal before this Court.

¶32

8. Today even if we dismiss the above appeal, no final order can be passed in the disciplinary proceedings, against a dead person. The disciplinary proceedings have actually abated. In other words the dismissal of the above appeal will have the same consequences as the appeal being allowed.

¶33

9. In view of the above, the above appeal is disposed of holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the original appellant stand abated. As a consequence, the legal representatives of the original appellant will be entitled to all

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

// 4 //

¶36

the benefits that the original appellant would have been entitled to, as per the rules. The respondents may pass orders in accordance with the rules, about the benefits lawfully admissible to the original appellant and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks. There will be no order as to costs.”

¶37

4.3. It is accordingly contended that since all the proceedings have

¶38

stand abated because of the death of the deceased employee, Opp. Parties be directed to sanction the retiral benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee within a stipulated time.

¶39

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel basing on the materials available on record, contended that since all the proceedings were initiated against the deceased employee, in view of the guideline issued by the General Administration Department, where prior to finalization of the proceeding, the deceased employee died and the proceeding is closed because of such death of the charged officer, the legal heirs of the deceased Govt. servant can be held liable, if it can be proved that they have inherited any assets acquired by the Government Servant with the help of the defalcated money. It is also contended that liberty be given to the State to take appropriate action against the erring officers for whom, all those proceedings could not be disposed of till the deceased employee died on 04.05.2023.

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

// 5 //

¶42

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made and since it is not disputed that during pendency of the aforesaid four (4) proceedings, the deceased employee died on 04.05.2023, placing reliance on the decision in the case of

¶43

A.K.S. Rathore as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that all the proceedings stand abated.

¶44

6.1. In that view of the matter, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take appropriate step for release of all retiral benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶45

6.2. However, it is observed that State is at liberty to take appropriate action against the erring officers for whose latches all the proceedings could not be disposed of for a pretty long period and so also against the legal heirs of the deceased employee in terms of the guidelines issued by the G.A. Department as contended.

¶46

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction and liberty.

¶47

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

¶48

Signature Not Verified JUDGE

¶49

Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDAReason: AuthenticationDated the 10^th March, 2026/Sneha Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 13-Mar-2026 11:01:30

¶50

Page 5 of 5

Kanchanbala Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchanbala Nayak 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantanu Kumar Swain Vs Aravind Agrawal, Commnr. Cum Secy., Govt. of Odisha, Higher Education

Siddhanta Kumar Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Trinath Prasad Mohanty Vs Union of India

Balaram Samal Vs State of Odisha

Pandaba Charan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Aruni Kumar Rajhansa Vs State of Odisha