IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.37717 of 2025 Sarat Kumar Patra …. Petitioner Mr. S. Mallik, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC COROM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 13.03.2026 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 challenging order dt.14.11.2025, so passed by Government-Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-12. Vide the said order while disposing the proceeding under the Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short, “Rules”) the following punishment was imposed. “The period of suspension is treated as leave due and admissible.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order, contended that since Petitioner is a retired employee and there is no such punishment prescribed under Rule-7 to treat the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, after such retirement of a delinquent employee, the impugned order passed under Annexure-12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.1. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed in the case of Simadri Panigrahi Vs. State of Odisha & Others, W.P.(C) No.11038 of 2022, disposed of on dt.28.01.2026. This Court in para-7 and 7.1 of the said order has held as follows: 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and taking into account the materials available on record, it is found that while disposing the proceeding vide order dt.21.08.2015 under Annexure-7, Petitioner was imposed with a minor punishment i.e. stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Appeal filed against such order of punishment was rejected vide order dt.25.03.2022 under Annexure-10. 7.1. On the face of such punishment imposed and in view of the decisions as cited supra, the period of suspension should not have been treated as such, instead of treating the same as duty. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as such. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to treat the period of suspension as duty and extend the financial benefit as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner. Such an exercise be undertaken and completed by the O.P. No. 2 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. Taking into account the nature of punishment imposed vide the impugned order, learned Addl. Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instruction vide order dt.05.02.2026. But no instruction when was provided, on the request made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, the matter was adjourned vide order dt.09.03.2026. Today when the matter was taken up, learned Addl. Standing Counsel failed to provide any instruction. It is however contended that on the face of various communications made by the Office of Advocate General, the authorities are not providing the instruction, as required. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that while disposing the proceeding after the retirement of the Petitioner in accordance with Rule-7 of the Rules, Opp. Party No.1 imposed the punishment to the effect that period of suspension is to be treated as leave due and admissible. 6.1. Since no such punishment is prescribed under Rule- 7 to treat the period of suspension as leave due and admissible after retirement of an employee and in absence of any other punishment being imposed, period of suspension cannot be treated as such, instead of treating the same as duty for all purposes, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.14.11.2025 so issued under Annexure-12 by Opp. party No.1. 6.2. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. party No.1 to treat the period of suspension involved as duty for all purposes, and release the benefits as due and admissible, within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) sangita Judge