Orissa High Court
WP(C)/68/2011 of KAILASH CH.ROUT Vs STATE on 19 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.68 of 2011 CNR No.ODHC010315152011 Kailash Ch. Rout …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Rath, Adv. on behalf of Mr. K.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.68 of 2011
CNR No.ODHC010315152011
Kailash Ch. Rout
….
Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. K.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
19.08.2026
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. None appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No.3 in spite of due appearance.
3. Even though the present Writ Petition was filed in the year 2011 seeking a direction on the Opp. Parties to deposit the CPF contribution deducted from the salary of the petitioner along with the contribution made by the employer-Dhenkanal Municipality, but it is fairly contended that during pendency of the Writ Petition, petitioner has not only attained the age of superannuation but also he was subsequently covered under the provisions of GPF Odisha Rules, 1938.
// 2 //
4. It is also contended that on the face of the order passed in an earlier Writ Petition, the amount so deducted from the petitioner’s salary along with the employer’s share was never deposited before the Provident Fund Authority.
4.1. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No.3 be directed to refund the amount so deducted from the petitioner’s salary i.e. employees’ share along with the employer’s share.
5. Since nobody is there on behalf of Opp. Party No.3, this Court considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, while disposing the Writ Petition, permits the petitioner to move an appropriate application before Opp. Party No.3 for refund of the amount so deducted towards PF contribution from his salary along with the employer’s share and not deposited before the Provident Fund Authority. It is observed that if any such application will be moved before Opp. Party No.3 within a period of 3(three) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of such application, with due communication to the petitioner.
6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge Basudev Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Aug-2026 16:17:32 Signature Not Verified