Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
Biswanath Mahanta – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 37529 of 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Rath
For the Respondents: A. Tripathy, S.K. Patra

Government employees are entitled to pension and retirement benefits if no departmental or judicial proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, in accordance with the prescribed rules.

Headnote:(A) Pension Rules - Rule 7(2) - Writ petition seeking pension and retirement dues - Petitioner retired without pending departmental or judicial proceedings - Held, withholding of retirement benefits is unlawful as no proceedings were pending at the time of retirement. (Paras 6, 8)

(B) Judicial Proceedings - Cognizance - Preliminary action required before a proceeding is considered pending - Court emphasizes the importance of timely filing of charge sheets in vigilance cases. (Para 6.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after retirement as a Deputy Director, was denied full pension and benefits due to pending vigilance cases, which had not been cognized until after his retirement.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no legal basis for withholding benefits as no proceedings were pending when the petitioner retired.

Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to retiree benefits despite vigilance cases pending post-retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that since no judicial proceedings were pending at the time of retirement, the petitioner was entitled to benefits.

Result: Writ petition allowed; retirement benefits ordered to be disbursed within four months, subject to vigilant outcomes.

Table of Content
1. introduction to the case and basic facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the withholding of retirement benefits. (Para 4)
3. precedent case supports entitlement to benefits. (Para 5)
4. judicial proceedings definition and effect on benefits. (Para 6)
5. respondent's arguments about the active proceedings. (Para 7)
6. court's determination on eligibility for benefits. (Para 8)
7. conclusion and disposal of the writ petition. (Para 9)

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:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased Admit the writ application, to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder shall not to be allowed, upon showing insufficient cause/ no cause make the said Rule absolute, Issue writ/writs in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to sanction and release the regular pension, gratuity, unutilized leave salary, commuted valued of pension and other retirement dues as due and admissible to the petitioner within a stipulated period as would be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

And to grant 18% interest on the unpaid amount of the petitioner for undue harassment and mental agony despite no legal hurdle to sanction and disburse the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioner;

And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.

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

4. It is contended that while continuing in service as Deputy Director of Mines, Sambalpur Circle, Sambalpur, Petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2023.

4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner by the time retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, there was no proceeding pending against him either departmental or criminal, but Petitioner after his retirement, was only sanctioned with the provisional pension vide order under Annexure-3.

4.2. It is however contended that Petitioner was not sanctioned with the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits, on the ground of pendency of two numbers of vigilance cases in Berhampur (Vigilance) P.S. Case No.37 of 2012 and 38 of 2012.

4.3. It is contended that since by the time, Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation, cognizance in both the vigilance proceedings had not yet been taken and the same was only taken on 12.02.2025 and 22.02.2025 respectively as reflected in Annexure-5, it has to be held that as on the date of retirement, no proceeding was pending against the Petitioner in the eye of law.

4.4. It is accordingly contended that since no proceeding was pending against the Petitioner as on the date of retirement, with-holding of the retirement benefits of the Petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed on 11.03.2026 in W.P. (C) No. 26820 of 2025 (Biranchi Narayan Behera vs. State of Odisha & Another). This Court in Para-6 to 6.3 of the said order has held as follows:-

“6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019. It is found that on the date of retirement no Departmental Proceeding was pending against the petitioner and petitioner was only implicated in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 dated 18.11.2014 for the offence under Section-13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988. It is not disputed that by the time petitioner retired on 28.02.2019, no charge-sheet was filed in the aforesaid Vigilance Proceeding which was only submitted on 29