IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 25349 of 2025

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India.

………………

Dr. Lalatendu Kumar Aich …. Petitioner

-versus-

Govt. of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties

For Petitioner : Ms. A.K. Dei, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan

Addl. Govt. Advocate

Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel

(Vigilance) PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 26.11.2025 & Date of Judgment: 26.11.2025

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms. A.K. Dei, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the

State-Opp. Party and Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“Under these circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a rule NISI, calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause as to why an appropriate writ/direction will not be issued directing the opposite parties to take immediate steps relating to gratuity and other retiral pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a specified period, and that the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the period from 30.06.2018 to the date of actual payment.

If the opposite parties fail to show cause and/or insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute;

And be further pleased to pass such other order/orders And/or issue such other direction/directions, as would deem fit and proper, And for which act of kindness the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that even though Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018, but because of the pendency of the vigilance proceeding in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01/2018, his retiral dues has not yet been released.

4.1. It is also contended that in the aforesaid vigilance proceeding since as on the date of retirement no charge sheet had been filed with taking of cognizance, in view of the provisions contained to the explanation to Rule 7(2)(b) of the OCS (Pension) Rules (in short Rules), it is to be held that no vigilance proceeding was pending against the Petitioner as on the date of retirement and accordingly Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all his retiral dues as due and admissible. Explanation to Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:-

“Explanation-For the purpose of this rule,-

(a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from the date of his suspension; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted,-

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court.”

4.2. It is also contended that since Petitioner has not yet been released with the gratuity amount as due and admissible even though there is no judicial proceeding is pending against him in the eye of law, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 49(5) of the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992, Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of interest @ 7% all through. Rule 49(5) of the Rules reads as follows:-

“(5) (a) Where the sanction of payment of gratuity is delayed for more than a year from the date it is due under sub-rule (1) or (2) as the case may be, and such delay is attributable to administrative lapses, interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum for t