Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7239 of 2026 Kirtan Bihari Nayak ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.04.2026 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia the following prayer. “It is therefore prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to direct the State/O/Ps to release the withheld amount of pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner after effecting recovery of Rs.1,89,860/- from the retirement benefits towards the loss cause to Govt. as per enquiry report of C.D.I. dtd. 12.12.2011 under Annexure-4 and order of punishment dated 18.03.2011 by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-5 in D.P. Case No.8077/Gen. dated 17.03.2004 under Annexure-3 and also by adjusting the provisional pension amount paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2004 onwards. And pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the ends of justice. Page 2 of 3. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that even though vide office order dated 18.03.2011 so issued by the Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-5, Petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,89,860/-, but some more amount has been kept withheld from the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner, after the Petitioner retired on 31.03.2004. 5. It is also fairly contended that Petitioner has not filed any application challenging the order of punishment passed vide office order dated 18.03.2011 under Annexure-5 and he does not also intend to challenge that order by filing any application. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that, by recovering a sum of Rs.1,89,860/- the residue benefit as due and admissible be released in favour of the Petitioner. 7. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has no objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties, considering the submission made and the fact that Petitioner has not challenged order dated 18.03.2011 and does not intend to challenge that order also, this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition, permits the Petitioner to move an appropriate application, before Opp. Party No.1 for release of the residue pensionary benefits if any with recovery of a sum of Rs.1,89,860/-. 9. It is observed that if any such application is moved within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of four (4) weeks Page 3 of 3. from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 be communicated to the Petitioner. 10. Opp. Party No.1 is directed to release the residue amount, if any after recovering the amount indicated in order dated 18.03.2011 without fail as the Petitioner has retired since 2004. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti