Departmental proceedings cannot be initiated beyond four years from the occurrence of an event, ensuring procedural compliance for retired individuals' benefits.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the so called memorandum dated 10.10.2025 issued by the opposite party no.4 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition, in view of the law decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Suchismita Mishra (supra) and of this Hon’ble case of Court in the case of Achyutananda Pradhan (supra).

And this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the opposite parties to release the pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner forthwith. since in the meantime more than two years have passed from the date of retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has not yet received any pension and retiral dues in spite of the direction of this Hon’ble Court under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

And this Hon’ble Court be pleased to further order/ orders, direction/pass any directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that Petitioner entered into service on 23.06.1989 and while so continuing, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2024. After such retirement of the Petitioner on 31.05.2024, when the retiral dues of the Petitioner was not released, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27681 of 2025. Basing on the instruction provided by the Department vide letter dtd.10.10.2025 that no proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner nor any proceeding is pending, the writ petition in question was disposed of vide order dtd.13.10.2025 under Annexure-14 with a direction on the Opposite Parties to sanction and disburse the pensionary benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though instruction was provided to this Court that no proceeding is pending against the Petitioner and accordingly this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dtd.13.10.2025 with a direction on the Opposite Parties to pay the pension and other pensionary benefits, but the impugned proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum dtd.10.10.2025 under Annexure-16, in order to frustrate the order passed by this Court on 13.10.2025 and the earlier instruction provided to this Court vide letter dtd.10.10.2025.

4.2. A further submission is also made that the proceeding in question since has been initiated with regard to an incident of the year 1989, when the Petitioner joined in his service, the said proceeding is also not permissible in the eye of law in view of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:-

“(2) (a) Such departmental proceedings referred in sub- rule (1) if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:

Provided that when the departmental proceedings are insti