Orissa High Court
Prasanta Kumar vs The Chairman on 1 August, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.39290 of 2021
Prasanta Kumar .... Petitioner
Mohapatra
Mr. S.K. Acharya, Adv.
-versus-
The Chairman, Utkal ....
Grameen Bank, Bolangir Opposite Parties
& Others
Mr. K.K. Jena, Adv.
(for O.P. Nos.1 to 3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 01.08.2025
5. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.21.09.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to treat the period of suspension from 24.03.2000 to 18.08.2002 as qualifying service for the purpose of sanction of pension was rejected relying on the provisions contained under Regulation 19(2) of the Utkal Grameen Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018.
// 2 //
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing under the Bank, he was placed under suspension on 24.03.2000. Subsequently, in the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner, while disposing the proceeding vide order dt.18.12.2010 under Annexure-3, the competent authority and Chairman of the Bank passed the following order with regard to treating the period of suspension.
xxx xxx xxx
2. However, taking a lenient view of the totality of the case, as a one time measure, I am inclined to (i) let you off with a WARNING to be very careful in your future dealings.(ii) Treat the period of suspension w.e.f 24.03.2000 to 18.08.2022 as such i.e. not spent on duty. However, you will earn notional increment during the period of suspension and the period of suspension will be reckoned for seniority.
Xxx xxx xxx 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the competent authority save and except treating the period of suspension as not spent on duty, held the Petitioner entitled to get the notional increment during the period of suspension and also held that the period of suspension will be reckoned for seniority.
4.2. It is further contended that on the retirement of the Petitioner while sanctioning the gratuity, the Page 2 of 7 // 3 // Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act took the entire period of service, including the period of suspension, as qualifying service and the opp. Party-bank was a party before the said Controlling Authority. It is however contended that on the face of the order passed under Annexure-3 and the gratuity sanctioned by treating the entire period of service including the period of suspension as qualifying service, prayer of the Petitioner to take the entire period of service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, was rejected vide the impugned order dt.21.09.2021 under Annexure-1 relying on the provision contained under Regulation 19(2) of the Utkal Grameen Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018. Regulation 19(2) of the Regulations,2018 reads as follows:
19. Period of suspension.-(1) xxxxx (2) In all other cases, the period of suspension shall not count as qualifying service unless the competent authority passing the orders under the service regulations governing such case expressly declare at the time that it shall count to such extent as such authority may declare.
4.3. It is contended that taking into account the nature of order passed while disposing the proceeding vide order under Annexure-3 and the benefit extended towards gratuity by taking the entire period of service including the period of suspension as qualifying Page 3 of 7 // 4 // service, rejection of the Petitioner's claim vide the impugned order on the ground indicated therein is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank on the other hand contended that by the time Petitioner was imposed with the punishment with treating the period of suspension vide order dt.18.12.2010 under Annexure-3, Petitioner's service was not coming under the Pensionable service and Petitioner only became entitled to get the benefit of pension in terms of the Bank's Regulation, 2018.
5.1. It is contended that as provided under Regulation 19(2) of the Regulation since it is provided that the period of service spent on suspension cannot be taken as qualifying service, while considering the Petitioner's claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.18.12.2010 under Annexure-1 series. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of pension in terms of Regulation 2018 and Regulation 19(2) is a bar to treat the period of suspension as qualifying service, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and it requires no interference.
Page 4 of 7// 5 //
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank contended that, since by the time the competent authority passed the order at Annexure-3 on 18.12.2010, provisions contained under the Regulation was not available and there was no occasion on his part to decide as to how the period of suspension will be reckoned for the purpose of qualifying service, the ground on which the impugned order has been passed by Opp. Party No.2 relying on Regulation 19(2) requires a consideration by the authority who passed the order under Annexure-3. It is also contended that as provided under Regulation 19(2), the competent authority can look into the issue involved.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing under the Bank, he was placed under suspension on 24.03.2000 and re- instated in service on 19.08.2002. While disposing the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner vide order dt.18.12.2010 under Annexure-3, Opp. Party No.1 passed the order to treat the period of suspension as not spent on duty, but on the other hand the self-same authority held the Petitioner entitled to get the benefit of notional increment during the period of suspension Page 5 of 7 // 6 // and the period of suspension was also reckoned for the purpose of seniority.
7.1. Since Regulations 2018 basing on which Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of pension was not there before the competent authority by the time the order under Annexure-3 was passed and since as provided under Regulation 19(2), the competent authority is competent to take a decision as to whether the period of suspension can be taken as qualifying service, this Court is of the view that the matter requires a consideration by Opp. Party No.1, being the competent authority.
7.2. Therefore, while quashing the impugned order dt.21.09.2021 under Anenxure-1, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner with regard to treating the period of suspension as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.
7.3. This Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision as directed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. While taking such a fresh decision, relevancy and effect of the order dt.18.12.2010 under Annexure-3 so passed by Opp.No.1 and the benefit of gratuity extended by the Controlling authority taking the entire period of service Page 6 of 7 // 7 // as qualifying service under the P.G. Act be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. The order so passed be communicated to the Petitioner.
7.4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Page 7 of 7 Date: 04-Aug-2025 12:08:03