Corrected WP(C) No.20840 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20840 of 2022 (Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Manoranjan Pradhan …. Petitioner -versus- Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd., represented through its Chairman and Others …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Somnath Mishra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 7th January, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for Odisha Forest Development Corporation (OFDC). 2. Mr. Mohapatra confines his prayer to Prayer No.(v), i.e. relating to payment of arrear gratuity for the period from 19th June, 1982 to 26th December, 1990. Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2025 17:19:53 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.20840 of 2022 3. The Opposite Parties have answered in their counter affidavit at para 6 that the Petitioner has admittedly worked for more than 240 days in the year 1983, 1989 and 1990. So far as the disputed period, i.e. 1984 to 1988 are concerned, the Opposite Parties have vaguely denied the same saying that the Petitioner has not worked continuously for such periods. A chart showing particulars of working period of the Petitioner from September, 1982 to December, 1990 has been filed by the Opposite Parties at Annexure- A. A thorough perusal of the same reveals that the Petitioner has worked continuously for such periods except those for which the records could not be traceable. So it is implied that the authorities have presumed that the Petitioner did not work continuously for such period, only for the reason of non-availability of the records, without actual data. 4. The Opposite Parties are unable to counter the submission of the Petitioner that he has worked continuously from 19th June, 1982 to December, 1990. Since the Petitioner has worked continuously for the available period as shown under Annexure-A, there cannot be any doubt raised on the contention of the Petitioner that he has also worked continuously for those periods for which records could not Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2025 17:19:53 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.20840 of 2022 be traceable. It needs to be mentioned here that the Opposite Parties being the custodian of the records are responsible for maintenance of the same and the liability, to take adverse inference, is on them for non-production of the same. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner is accepted that he has worked continuously from 19th June, 1982 to December, 1990. 5. At this stage Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties submits that the Petitioner should have approached appropriate forum under the Payment of Gratuity Act to redress his grievance and the writ petition is not maintainable for availability of such alternative remedy. 6. The principles of entertaining writ petition upon availability of alternative remedy has been well settled by several decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3579, it is held that; “In this regard, we are also of the view that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appellant’s appeal vide order dated 29.02.2024, on mere technical grounds, citing availability of alternative remedies. It is trite law that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has the vast discretion to entertain a writ petition, even if alternate remedies Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2025 17:19:53 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.20840 of 2022 may exist, especially in cases where the Executive have blatantly and brazenly misused its power to weaken democratic values at the grass root level.” 7. In the instant case the Petitioner has retired from service since January, 2022 and the gratuity due to him having not been paid to him he approached this court wherein notices have already issued and the Opposite Parties have filed their counter on merit. So at this stage it would be inappropriate to send the matter back to the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, particularly when all the materials have been brought on record in the present writ petition to adjudicate the dispute. As such, the writ petition is entertained rejecting the contention of the Opposite Parties. 8. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay the balance arrear gratuity in favour of the Petitioner counting his service continuously from 19th June, 1982 to December, 1990, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (B.P. Routray) Judge M..K. Panda, P.A.