IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31899 of 2025 Surendra Sethi …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P. Behera, SC for O.P. No.1 and 2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 08.01.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Pursuant to order dated 13.11.2025, learned counsel appearing for the Department produced the instruction provided by the Office of the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack so issued vide letter dated 18.11.2025. Copy of the instruction so provided be kept in record. 4. Basing on the instruction, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Transport Department contended that Govt. in the meantime has been moved by the authority seeking clarification as to whether Provisional Pension can be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner because of the pendency of a criminal proceeding as well as departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 5. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is prayed, therefore that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; i) Admit and allow the writ petition. ii) Quash the impugned letter vide No.I56I4/TC/Estt (RTA) dated 24.10.2025 under Annexure-7 so far it relates to denial of provisional pension in favour of the petitioner; iii) Further direct the O.P. No.2 to sanction and disburse provisional pension and unutilized leave salary in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time; iv) Further direct the O.P. No.3 to issue authority for payment of Final G.P.F. amount outstanding in his GPF A/C No. 1442-TRO within a stipulated period of time; v) And further be pleased to pass such other order (s), direction (s) as deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the ease to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 6. It is contended that petitioner though retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2025, but on the face of the clear provision contained under Rule-66 of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules”), petitioner has not yet been sanctioned with provisional pension even. 6.1. Claim for release of provisional pension was also not considered awaiting clarification from the Govt. so intimated vide the impugned communication dated 24.10.2025 under Annexure-7. 6.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of pendency of Criminal as well as Disciplinary Proceeding, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-66 of the aforesaid Rules, petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of provisional pension and there was no necessity on the part of the State Transport Authority to seek clarification from the Govt. Rule-66 of the Rules reads as follows:- “66. Grant of provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceeding is pending- (1) Where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending in respect of a Government servant on the date of his retirement, referred to in, he shall be paid a provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant ; or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. (2) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon:- Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under rule 16 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 for imposing any of the penalties specified in clause (i), (ii) and (iii-A) of rule 13 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant. (3) The provisional pension shall be authorized during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority. (4) The authority competent to sanction pension shall be the authority competent to sanction provisional pension. (5) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period.” 6.3. It is accordingly contended that necessary direction be issued to release the provisional pension as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner forthwith. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department basing on the instruction so received contended that since Govt. has not yet issued any clarification, the authority is not in a position to release the provisional pension. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-66 of the Rules, it is the view of this Court that pendency of a criminal proceeding as well as disciplinary proceeding is not a bar to extend the benefit of provisional pension. Since the Rule is very clear, it is the view of this Court that the competent authority should not have sought for any clarification from the Govt. 8.1. In that view of the matter, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, directs O.P. No.2 to release the provisional pension as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner on or before 30.01.2026 along with the arrear. Any other retiral benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner will be released only after disposal of the proceedings in question. 9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev