IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.31625 of 2024 Satyanarayan Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC COROM: HON’BLE THE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 31.03.2026 3. 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: It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why: (i) a direction shall not be issued to quash the order dated 18.09.2018 issued by the Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-8 and why a direction shall not be issued to release final pension and pensionary benefits to the Petitioner with 10% interest from the date of entitlement till the payment is released, taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court of India rendered n between rendered in between D.D. Tiwari (dead) Versus Uttar Pradesh Bijili Bitaran Nigam reported in AIR 2014 SC Page-2861. (ii) And after hearing the parties be pleased to quash the order dated 18.09.2018 issued by the p. 2 p. 2 Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-8 and direct the Opp. Parties to release final pension and pensionary benefits of the Petitioner with 10% interest from the date of entitlement till payment is released. And pass such other order/orders granting 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 Petitioner while continuing in service as a Sr. Clerk in the establishment of Collector, Kandhamal, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016 vide order under Annexure-1. 5. It is contended that even though Petitioner retired on 31.10.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation and as on the date of retirement, neither any Criminal proceeding nor Departmental Proceeding was pending against him, but Petitioner was not sanctioned with his retiral benefits, save and except provisional pension, so sanctioned vide order dt.01.11.2016 under Annexure-2. It is contended that subsequently ,in view of the impugned communication issued on 18.09.2018 under Annexure-8, Petitioner’s retiral benefits has been kept withheld. 5.1. It is contended that since while in service, Petitioner was not held liable to pay any amount with initiation of any proceeding and due determination of the amount, basing on audit recovery, so reflected in p. 3 p. 3 Annexure-8, Petitioner’s retiral benefits could not have been withheld. It is accordingly contended that Opp. party No.3 be directed to release the retiral benefits of the Petitioner as due and admissible, as no proceeding was pending against the Petitioner as on the date of retirement nor any proceeding has been initiated as on date, save and except the communication issued under Annexure-8. 6. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 23.12.2024, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, basing on the materials available on record, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since as per the audit report, Petitioner along with others have been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.17,84,154/- so reflected in Annexure-8, Petitioner’s retiral benefits have not been released. It is contended that since Petitioner is liable along with others to pay the aforesaid amount, no illegality or irregularity can be found with regard to the action of the Opp. Parties in not releasing the retiral benefits of the Petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this court finds that Petitioner while continuing in service, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016. After such retirement from service, Petitioner vide order dt.01.11.2016 under Annexure-2 p. 4 p. 4 was sanctioned with the provisional pension. But subsequently, taking recourse to the impugned communication issued on 18.09.2018 under Annexure- 8, wherein Petitioner along with others have been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.17,84,154/-, retiral benefits of the Petitioner has been withheld. 7.1. This Court taking into account the materials available on record, is of the view that since no proceeding was pending against the Petitioner as on the date of retirement, either Departmental or Criminal, basing on audit recovery, retiral benefits of the Petitioner could not have been withheld. It is also the view of this Court that unless and until the amount in question payable by the Petitioner is determined in accordance with law, Petitioner cannot be held liable to pay any amount. 7.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that claim of the Petitioner to get his retiral benefits has been withheld without any reason or basis. 7.3. Therefore, while disposing the Writ Petition, this Court directs Opp. party No.3 to release the retiral benefits of the Petitioner, as due and admissible, but subject to verification that as on the date of retirement, no Criminal or Departmental Proceeding was pending against the Petitioner, so contended. It p. 5 p. 5 is also open for the Opp. Parties to take appropriate steps for recovery of the amount basing on the audit recovery by initiating appropriate proceeding in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no opinion. 7.4. This Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to release the retiral benefits, as due and admissible, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order, however, with the condition that Petitioner will not claim any interest for such delayed payment of his retirement benefits as Petitioner has only approached this Court in the present Writ Petition in December, 2024. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita