IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26820 of 2025 Biranchi Narayan Behera …. Petitioner Mr. N. Rath, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Another …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 11.03.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner, therefore most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased Admit the writ application, to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed, upon showing insufficient cause/ no cause make the said Rule absolute. Issue writ/ writs in the nature of i. Mandamus quashing the letter dtd. 10.07.2025 issued by the opp. Party No.2 as at Annexure-11 declaring the same illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of statutory rules and the circulars issued by the Government under and further direct Opposite Parties to release the final p. 2 p. 2 pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner along with compounding interest at rate pf 12% per annum within a period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court in view of the fact that the petitioner retired from Govt. service w.e.f. 28.02.2019 and no judicial proceeding or departmental proceeding was pending against him as on the date of his retirement. ii. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. It is contended that by the time the petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019, neither any Disciplinary Proceeding was pending against him nor in the Vigilance Proceeding so initiated in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 dated 18.11.2014, charge-sheet had been filed with the order taking cognizance against the petitioner. 4.1. It is contended that in the aforesaid Vigilance Proceeding, charge-sheet was filed on 29.02.2020 and cognizance was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 21.07.2021. Placing reliance on the circulars issued under Annexure-8 and 9 and so also the notification issued by the Finance Department on 19.05.2025 under Annexure-12, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since as on the date of retirement of the petitioner, no proceeding in the eye of law was pending against the petitioner, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all his retirement benefits. But the Opp. Parties on the ground of pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding did not release the retiral benefits and initiated the Departmental Proceeding p. 3 p. 3 vide Memorandum dated 28.02.2023, which has now been quashed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.27021 of 2025. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to the Opp. Party No.1 to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner as due and admissible, as he is suffering since 28.02.2019. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand basing on the preliminary counter affidavit filed, contended that since by the time petitioner retired from his services, admittedly a Vigilance Proceeding was pending against him in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 dated 18.11.2014 and disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs.26,02,256/- has been found against the petitioner in the Vigilance Proceeding, petitioner rightly was not released with his retiral dues. 5.1. Even though charge-sheet was filed after retirement of the petitioner with cognizance being taken vide order dated 21.07.2021, petitioner is not entitled to get the retiral benefits unless and until the Vigilance Proceeding is disposed of in accordance with law. It is also contended that the allegation in the vigilance proceeding is very serious in nature. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019. It is found that on the date of retirement p. 4 p. 4 no Departmental Proceeding was pending against the petitioner and petitioner was only implicated in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 dated 18.11.2014 for the offence under Section-13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988. It is not disputed that by the time petitioner retired on 28.02.2019, no charge-sheet was filed in the aforesaid Vigilance Proceeding which was only submitted on 29.02.2020 and cognizance was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 21.07.2021. 6.1. Placing reliance on the stipulation contained in the Circular issued by the G.A. and P.G. Department on 12.12.2019 under Annexure-8 and the Home Department on 22.08.2024 under Annexure-9 and so also the Notification issued by the Finance Department on 19.05.2025 under Annexure-12, since as on the date of retirement, neither any Departmental Proceeding was pending and in the Vigilance Proceeding, charge-sheet was only filed on 29.02.2020 much after the retirement, it is the view of this Court that petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the retiral benefits and it cannot be withheld on the ground of pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding where admittedly cognizance has been taken only on 21.07.2021. 6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, directs Opp. Party No.1 to release all the retiral benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months hence. p. 5 p. 5 However, release of the said benefits shall be subject to final outcome of the Vigilance Proceeding. 6.3. This Court while disposing the matter however deprecates the action of the Vigilance Authority, in not filing the charge-sheet till 29.02.2020 even though proceeding was initiated on 18.11.2014 and thereby giving a scope to the petitioner to raise his claim to get the benefits. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is directed to provide copy of the orders passed in the present Writ Petition as well as in the connected W.P.(C) No.28021 of 2025 to the concerned Department as well as the Directorate of Vigilance for information and necessary action. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev