IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C). No. 32695 of 2024 Purna Chandra Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Accountant General (A & E) Odisha, Bhubaneswar & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.C. Pradhan, ASC Mr. S.K. Patra, S.C. Opp. Party No.2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 17.01.2025 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and the State. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner has sought for a direction from this Court, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.11.2024, Annexure-8 to the extent raising objection in the matter of grant of 1st RACP benefit of Rs.4,200/- in favour of the Petitioner at Sl. No.2 and a further direction for the Opposite Party No.1 to finalize the pension case of the Petitioner and to issue authorization in terms of the GPO/PPO in favour of the Petitioner for drawl and disbursement of all the retiral benefit including gratuity, commuted value of pension, GIS etc so also the differential arrears, due and admissible on the basis of the pension papers so submitted by the Petitioner. 3. In course of the hearing of the matter, the learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the circular basing on which the Petitioner has already been granted the RACP under Annexure-3 and also submitted that the copy of the circular has duly been endorse to the Opposite Party No.1 and despite the above circular being within the knowledge of the Accountant General, there was no reason as to why the pension papers of the Petitioner was to be returned seeking for an administrative approval for the grant of RACP. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the circular dated 01.07.2020 bearing No.19420 of the Govt. of Odisha, Finance Department relates primarily to those cases, which are covered by the direction issued by the Court in conformity with the principles of State of Odisha-Vs.- Biharilal Barik case and that the Petitioner does not come within the said circular as the RACP, in case of the present petitioner has already been granted in accordance with the ORSP Rules, 2017 in accordance with the circular bearing No.3560 dated 06.02.2013. 4. Needless to say that the grant of financial benefit to the employee requires an administrative approval of the Finance Department, as rightly observed in the circular dated 01.07.2020 under Annexure-9, whether the benefit extended in respect to the Petitioner or otherwise through the direction of the Court in conformity with the principles of State of Odisha-Vs.-Biharilal Barik, an administrative approval is a condition precedent which in the case of the Petitioner may happen to be a post facto approval since the benefit has already been granted in his favour. 5. In view of the above, in absence of a serious objection from the side of the Government, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.5 i.e. the Collector & District Magistrate, Nayagarh shall do well in processing the pension papers of the Petitioner in line with the circular dated 01.07.2020 under Annexure-9 by obtaining the post facto administrative approval and sent the pension papers of the Petitioner as early as possible to the Opp.Party no.1 to further the pension . It is further directed that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has since retired with effect from 31.01.2024. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 6. A free copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the State so also to the Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay