IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5229 of 2026 Banchhanidhi Satapathy …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No. 18.02.2026

01. 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 challenging order dtd.20.12.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order, Opposite Party No.2 withheld the pension and gratuity of the Petitioner in full and permanently.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that such an order under Annexure-1 was passed, because of the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Keonjhar in VGR No.3 of 2017/T.R. No.8 of

2017, vide judgment dtd.23.03.2024 under Annexure-2.

4.1. It is further contended that, challenging such order of conviction and sentence, Petitioner has already approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.274 of 2024. This Court vide order dtd.02.04.2024 under Annexure-3 while admitting the appeal allowed the Petitioner to go on bail.

4.2. It is accordingly contended that since the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner is under challenge before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.274 of 2024, during pendency of the appeal, the impugned order could not have been passed.

5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that even though the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner is under challenge before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.274 of 2024, but this Court while admitting the appeal vide order dtd.02.04.2024, never stayed the order of conviction and sentence. Since the order of conviction and sentence has not been stayed by this Court while admitting the appeal, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order, Petitioner being a convicted employee and such an order has been passed by Opposite Party No.2, taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule-6 and 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the order under Annexure-1 was passed on 20.12.2024, after Petitioner was convicted in the vigilance proceeding vide judgment dtd.23.03.2024 in VGR No.3 of 2017 under Annexure-2. Even though, such order of conviction and sentence is under challenge before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.274 of 2024, but it is found that no such order has been passed by this Court staying the operation of the order of conviction and sentence while admitting the appeal vide order dtd.02.04.2024.

6.1. Since the order of conviction and sentence has not been stayed by this Court while admitting the appeal, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-1. It is also the view of this Court that such an order has been passed strictly in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-6 & 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, which requires no interference.

6.2. Therefore, this Court while is not inclined to interfere with order dtd.20.12.2024 under Annexure-1, observe that such an order will be subject to final outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.274 of 2024. If Petitioner will be ultimately acquitted from the charges in the vigilance proceeding, he can reiterate his claim.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK

Reason: Authentication

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

Date: 20-Feb-2026 18:25:37