IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.414 of 2023 State of Odisha & Others … Petitioners Mr. B. Nayak, AGA -versus- Ashok Kumar Kar … Opp. Party Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 28.07.2025 23. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This Review Petition has been filed for reviewing/recalling the judgment dated 01.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.3511 of 2020 basically on ground , as has been urged in Paragraph-4 of the Review Petition, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “4. That after finalisation of the writ petition on 01.03.2023 the pension sanctioning authority from parent department i.e. Water Resources Department through Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department made correspondences with the Panchayati Raj Department to get the detail information with respect to the petitioner and in response of such correspondences the Panchayati Raj Deptt. intimated regarding the status of Balasore P.S. Case No. 11 dtd. 11.04.2007 corresponding the T.R. Case No.115 of 2011 decided by the Special Vigilance, Keonjhar disposing the aforesaid Vigilance Case as per Judgement dtd. 10.05.2023 wherein the present 0pp. Party is the accused and the present 0pp. Party has been convicted after being found guilty of such judgement and the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar dtd. 10.05.2023 has been communicated to Panchayati p. 2 Raj Department by the G.A. (Vigilance) Deptt. better No. 17398 dtd.01.09.2023. A copy of the Judgment dtd. 10.05.2023 passed in V.G.R. No.ll of 2017/T.R. No.ll5 of 2011 and copy of the letter dtd.01.09.2023 issued by the G.A. (Vigilance) Deptt., Cuttack to the| P.R. & D.W. Deptt., Odisha, Bhubaneswar are annexed herewith as Annexure-2 and 3 respectively.” (Emphasis Supplied) 4. It has also been urged in the review petition that since the writ petition stood disposed of applying the principle of non-traverse, the fact regarding pendency of vigilance case against the petitioner could not be brought to the notice of this Court. That apart, the Opposite Party/ The Writ Petitioner also suppressed the fact regarding pendency of vigilance case against him, even though the said case was disposed of on 10.05.2023 , i.e., after disposal of the writ petition. 5. The Opposite Party – Review Petitioner, though has filed an Objection to the Review Petition, has admitted the said fact regarding his conviction in VGR Case No.11 of 2007 and T.R. No.115 of 2011, which stood disposed of on 10.05.2023 with a conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, vide Paragraph-3 of the said Objection, it has been stated that though the Opposite Party is not entitled to pensionary benefits like gratuity and pension, but he is entitled for arrear salary which can be calculated by the Review Petitioner and disbursed in favour of the Opposite Party. 6. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and the grounds urged in the Review Petition so also the admission by the Opposite Party in his Objection, the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2023 p. 3 passed in W.P.(C) No.3511 of 2020 sands recalled. 7. The Review Petition is disposed of accordingly. (S.K. Mishra) Judge amit