Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 16336 of 2024 P. Pradip Kumar Patro ..... Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.K. Bisoi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 16.10.2025 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on behalf of Mr. R.K. Bisoi, learned counsel and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.13.03.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-7, wherein claim of the Petitioner for release of his retiral benefits on the ground of pendency of a vigilance proceeding and departmental proceeding has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while in service, attained his age of superannuation and retired on 31.05.2021. By the time he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021, even though the vigilance proceeding was pending against him in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20 of 2017, but no charge sheet was filed by the time Petitioner retired Page 2 of 3. on 31.05.2021. It is also contended that till 03.05.2024 as found from Annexure-3, final form has not yet been submitted. 4.1. It is further contended that the disciplinary proceeding was only initiated vide Memorandum dtd.08.11.2021 under Annexure-4. It is accordingly contended that since as on the date of retirement on 31.05.2021 no charge sheet was filed in the vigilance case and no departmental proceeding was pending against the Petitioner, in view of the decision in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sushanta Chandra Sahoo & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 14718 of 2015) decided on 06.05.2022, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits and the ground on which his claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.13.03.2023 under Annexure-7, is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to sanction the retiral benefits of the Petitioner as due and admissible. 5. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 12.07.2024, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that if claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit is covered by an order passed by this Court in the case of Sushanta Chandra Sahoo as contended, the matter be remitted for fresh consideration. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made and placing reliance on the decision in the case of Sushanta Chandra Sahoo, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Page 3 of 3. 6.1. Therefore, while quashing order dtd.13.03.2023 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-7, this Court remits the matter to the said authority to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim taking into account the decision in the case of Sushanta Chandra Sahoo within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the order passed in the case of Sushanta Chandra Sahoo for compliance. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha