Orissa High Court
WA/2699/2024 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs LAXMAN KUMAR SARANGI on 6 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.2699 of 2024 State of Odisha …. Appellant Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA -Versus- Laxman Kumar Sarangi …. Respondent Mr. Nihal Rath, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 10. ORDER 06.07.2026 The State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.2699 of 2024
State of Odisha
….
Appellant
Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA
-Versus-
Laxman Kumar Sarangi
….
Respondent
Mr. Nihal Rath, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
10.
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
06.07.2026
The State and its officials are preferring this Intra-Court Appeal for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 04.01.2024, whereby Respondent-employee’s WP(C) No.20395 of 2021 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded:
“In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Opposite Parties No.l and 2 to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sashanta Chandra Sahoo’s case (snpra). Accordingly, if the Opposite Parties No.l and 2 are come to a conclusion that on the date of retirement of the Petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding was not in existence and no charge sheet was filed and no cognizance was taken in the criminal case, the Opposite Parties No. l and 2 shall do well to extend the benefits to the Petitioner as has been done in the case of Snshanta Chandra Sahoo's case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee vehemently opposes the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and reasoning on which the same has been constructed. He tells that it has been settled position of law that unless the disciplinary proceedings are pending or a criminal trial is half a through, the pension payable to a retired employee cannot be withheld.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the partis and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reason:
3.1. The allegation was as to the Respondent-employe not filing the true and complete declaration of all moveable and immovable assets in terms of Rule 21(4) of O.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1992. He retired on 31.03.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. The charge memo was served on the delinquent only on 30.06.2020, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-5 and the criminal case vide Vigilance P.S. Case No.8 of 2017 was launched only on 31.01.2017. The police after investigation have filed the charge-sheet on 26.05.2026. Thus, obviously in terms of Rule 7 no disciplinary proceeding nor criminal proceeding was pending as on the date of the superannuation. That being the factor, on which the impugned judgment has been constructed, there is absolutely no warrant for interference at our hand. Appeal is accordingly dismissed coupled with a direction to give effect to the order of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks.
Costs made easy.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Prasant
Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 08-Jul-2026 12:58:32 Signature Not Verified