IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.419 of 2026 Kanakalata Mangaraj …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC Mr. Sangram Das, SC for Vigilance CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 28.01.2026 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 09.01.2026, learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance produced copy of order dated 16.01.2026, so passed by this Court in CRLLP No.160 of 2017. The same be kept in record. 3.1. Basing on the order so passed, it is contended that since the accused-appellant died during pendency of the Leave Petition on 18.02.2020, the Leave Petition was dismissed as having become abated. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: - p. 2 p. 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for records and after hearing the parties, pleased to quashed the impugned letter no. 17232 dtd 02.08.2024 issued by OP No.2 under annexure.4 and allow the writ petition and direct the 0pp. Party No.2 to take steps for release of the final pension, gratuity, increments and arrear and revised pension in favor of the petitioner with m a stimulate period. And pass any other order/orders, direction/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper.” 5. It is contended that claim of the petitioner who happens to be the wife of the deceased employee for sanction of RACP as well as retiral benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee and family pension in favour of the petitioner, was rejected vide Annexure-4 communication dated 02.08.2024, inter alia on the ground that against the order of acquittal so passed in the Vigilance Case, State Vigilance has moved to this Court by filing CRLLP No.160 of 2017. 5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the deceased employee was acquitted honorably by the learned Vigilance Judge vide judgment dated 27.04.2017 but because of pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding and the leave petition in CRLLP No.160 of 2017, the deceased employee during his service career was not sanctioned with the benefit of RACP nor after his retirement, he was extended with the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits save and except, provisional pension. p. 3 p. 3 5.2. Not only that, after the death of the deceased employee on 18.02.2020, petitioner is not being sanctioned with the dues as due and admissible to the deceased employee, save and except, provisional family pension. It is accordingly contended that claim of the petitioner has been illegally rejected vide the impugned order dtd.02.08.2024 under Annexure-4 and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Learned State Counsel taking into account the submission of learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance), contended that since the leave petition filed against the deceased employee was abated vide order dated 16.01.2026 only, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and the fact that the Leave Petition filed by the State Vigilance against the order of acquittal in CRLLP No.160 of 2017, has been dismissed as having become abated vide order dated 16.01.2026, this Court is of the view that the ground on which petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned communication dated 02.08.2024 under Annexure-4, is no more sustainable in the eye of law. 7.1. Since Leave Petition filed by the State Vigilance has been dismissed because of death of the accused- appellant on 18.02.2020, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned rejection p. 4 p. 4 dated 02.08.2024 under Annexure-4, directs Opp. Party No.4 to take appropriate step for sanction of all the pre- retiral and retiral benefit as due and admissible to the deceased employee including original family pension in favour of the petitioner. This Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev