Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 3 May, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OA) NO.1368 of 2015
Prafulla Kumar Samal .... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Sahoo Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, Addl.
Govt. Advocate
Mr. S.K. Patra, Adv.
(for opp. party no.5)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
03.05.2023 Order No
6. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.C. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. M. K. Balabangaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.5.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the adjustment of the entire gratuity amount as due to the Petitioner by the Opp. party No.5 while issuing the sanction order vide Annexure-8 series.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the ground of alleged mis-appropriation, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum dated 18.10.2005. But the said proceeding in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 02.05.2008 in O.A No.2128(C ) of 2005 was quashed. Subsequent to such quashing of the proceeding when the Opp. Party No.2 passed a fresh order on 25.09.2013 under Annexure-6 directing for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,78,468/- from the Petitioner by initiating judicial/Criminal proceeding as well as Certificate Case, the Petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal in // 2 // O.A. No.2911 of 2013. The Tribunal vide its order dated 27.11.2013 quashed the order so passed on 25.09.2013. It is contended that in spite of such order passed by the Tribunal in quashing the proceeding as well as in quashing the order of recovery, when the Opp. party No.5 withheld the entire gratuity amount of the Petitioner while sanctioning the same vide Annexure-8 series, the present Writ Petition was filed.
4.1. It is contended that since the order of recovery as well as proceeding against the Petitioner were quashed by the Tribunal and the said order was never challenged by the State-Opp. parties, no recovery can be effected from the Petitioner. The Petitioner is accordingly entitled to get the benefit of the gratuity amount as due and admissible to him.
5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned A.G.A made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
It is contended that after receipt of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-6, Government was moved for sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits and the pension papers of the Petitioners were forwarded to the Opp. Party No.5 for finalization. It is contended that final pension of the Petitioner has been sanctioned. However, it is contended that basing on the letter issued by the Government in the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management dt.19.09.2014 wherein instruction was issued to recover the amount from the Petitioner by adopting other legal methods, the gratuity amount of Rs.80,850/- as due to the Petitioner was adjusted towards the recovery of Rs.2,78,468. It is contended that basing on such instruction issued by the pension sanctioning authority, the entitlement of the Petitioner towards gratuity was adjusted by Opp. Party No.5 towards the recoverable amount. It is accordingly contended that no illegality has been committed by the Opp. parties in adjusting the gratuity amount towards the recovery as instructed by the Page 2 of 4 // 3 // Government in its letter dated 29.09.2014.
6. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. party No.5 contended that on receipt of Pension papers, the Opp. Party No.5 has sanctioned the pension in favour of the Petitioner. But taking into account the communication made by the pension sanctioning authority, the entire gratuity amount has been adjusted towards the recovery so indicated in Annexure-6.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that for the alleged misappropriation when a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner in the year 2005, the same was challenged and quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.05.2008 in OA No.2128(C) of 2005. Subsequently when the order dt. 25.09.2013 was passed by the Opp. party No.2 under Annexure- 6, directing for recovery of Rs.2,78,468/- from the Petitioner by initiating judicial/criminal proceeding as well as certificate case, the same was challenged by the Petitioner before the Tribunal in OA. No.2911 of 2013. The Tribunal vide its order dated 27.11.2003 under Annexure-7 quashed the order dt.25.09.2013. It is found from the record that the order passed by the Tribunal on 27.11.2013 under Anexure-7 was never challenged by the State machineries and it accordingly attained finality in the eye of law. While holding so, this Court finds that on the face of the such order, the gratuity amount of the Petitioner could be adjusted towards the recovery. Accordingly, this Court while interfering with the matter directs the Opp. party No.5 to release the withheld gratuity amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum all through in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Since Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No.5, he is directed to communicate the copy of this order to Opp. Party No.5 for compliance.
Page 3 of 4// 4 // The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: eMudhra.App.Views.PartialControls.SigningModeTab.SigningTabVie wModel Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-May-2023 17:12:33 Page 4 of 4