IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 26077 of 2023 Bharat Chandra Khilar @ Bharat Chandra Khillar …. Petitioner Mr. S. Dash, Advocate -versus- Bank of India, Mumbai & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. K. K. Jena, Advocate for O.P.4 & 5 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 06.04.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Even though Petitioner’s claim to get his retiral benefits has been rejected vide order dtd.15.07.2022 under Annexure-14 of Opposite Party No.2, but learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relying on an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool (D) Though Lrs. and Another in Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2013 disposed of on 11.12.2013, contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. It is accordingly contended that Opposite Party No.2 be directed to take a fresh decision taking into account the order passed in the above noted case in the case S.K. Kool. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party- Bank however contended that Petitioner since is a discharged employee, his claim has been rightly rejected and issue decided in the case of S.K. Kool is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to make an appropriate application before Opposite Party No.2 for re-consideration of his claim so rejected vide the impugned order dtd.15.07.2022 under Annexure-14, taking into account the decision in the case of S.K. Kool. 6.1. It is observed that if any such application will be filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner. 6.2. However, while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.K. Kool be taken into consideration, if it is applicable to the Petitioner’s claim. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat