IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13184 of 2003 Sisirakanta Mohapatra …. Petitioner Ms. A. Mohanty, Adv. -versus- Registrar, Cooperative Societeis, Orissa & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Pradhan, Adv. (For O.P. Nos.2 to 4) COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 29.06.2026 29. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: The petitioner, therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp parties to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ of writs shall not be issued:- 1) directing the opp. parties to pay the gratuity and arrear leave salary of the petitioner along with interest. from the date of his retirement till the date of payments II) In the alternative be further pleased to direct the Opp. parties to settle the claim of the petitioner and after deducting the amount outstanding against the petitioner at the time of his retirement if any, from the Gratuity and arrear leave salary of the petitioner as was admissible to him at the time of his retirement and to pay the balance amounts within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the precarious condition, If the Opp parties fall to show cause of show insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute; And to pass such other order or orders, issue such other writ or writs as would afford complete relief to the petitioner; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray. 4. It is contended that since gratuity and some other retiral benefits as due to the deceased employee were not released by the Opp. Party-Bank, the present Writ Petition was filed. 5. It is however contended that during pendency of the Writ Petition, since the deceased employee died, his legal heirs have been duly substituted. It is accordingly contended that Opp. party No.5 be directed to release the retiral benefits of the deceased employee, as due and admissible, in favour of the legal heirs, who have been substituted in the meantime. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party- Bank on the other hand contended that since the deceased employee was liable to pay certain amount, the retiral benefits of the deceased employee has not been released. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioners to make a joint application before Opp. Party No.3 for release of the retiral benefits of the deceased employee as due and admissible. 8. It is observed that if any such application is filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.3 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.3 be communicated to Petitioner No.1(a). 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Reason: authentication of order