Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2811 of 2026 Binod Bihari Mohapatra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Srikar Kumar Rath -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “The petitioner therefore prays this honorable court may kindly be pleased issue writ in nature of mandamus in directing to the Vigilance authority to provide clearance certificate within one month & thereafter all educational authority to complete the action within one month & finally the Controller of Page 2 of 4. Accounts release the arrear differential final pension & finally release monthly final pension. And/Or any other order or orders be passed by modulating the prayer in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner, who was working as a lecturer in political science on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2021, has retired from service. Since he is not getting his pension and pensionary benefits, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while the Petitioner was in service he was entangled in a vigilance case. However, in the meantime the Petitioner faced trial in VGR No.6 of 2001, which corresponds to Trial No.1218 of 2018 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore. By virtue of the judgment dated 17.04.2025 the Petitioner has been acquitted of all charges. A copy of the judgment dated 17.04.2025 has been filed along with the writ petition at Annexure-3. On perusal of the judgment dated 17.04.2025, it appears that the learned trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person including the Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and resultantly, the accused persons were not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 417, 468, 477-A, 471, 120-B of IPC. Accordingly, they have been acquitted of all charges. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture further contended that despite such judgment of acquittal dated 17.04.2025 the Petitioner has not been paid his dues. He further contended that such delay is due to non-grant of no objection certificate by the Page 3 of 4. Vigilance Department. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on a careful examination of the pleadings contained in the writ petition and on a careful scrutiny of the judgment dated 17.04.2025, it appears that the Petitioner has been acquitted in the vigilance case. He further submitted that he has no instruction as to whether the State has preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner be directed to approach the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 4 for grant of NOC in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time and he will have no objection to such direction. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, further taking into consideration the judgment dated 17.04.2025, this Court prima facie observes that the Petitioner has been acquitted in the case in which he was entangled. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 4 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner and in the event no further appeal has been filed and the judgment dated 17.04.2025 has attained finality, necessary clearance be provided in favour of the Petitioner enabling him to get the service benefits as is due and admissible to him. Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of eight weeks. The Opposite Parties shall keep the Petitioner informed about the development in writing. Page 4 of 4. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout