← Library
Orissa High CourtWP(C)/17558/2014disposed off

Basudev Sahoo v. Secy.Revenue And Dm

2022-03-16Dr. Justice B.R.Sarangi,Miss Justice Savitri Ratho2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 17558 of 2014 Basudev Sahoo .....

Petitioner Mr. A.K. Mohapatra-1, Advocate Vs.

Secy., Revenue & D.M.

Department, Odisha & Anr.

.....

Opposite parties State Counsel

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

16.03.2022 Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. B. Mohapatra on behalf of Mr. A.K.

Mohapatra-1, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.2756(C) of 2013, by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 4.

Perused the order dated 01.08.2014 passed the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.2756(C) of 2013, wherein the tribunal in paragraph-12 has observed as follows:

"12) In this particular instant case, whatever is proposed to be sanctioned after retirement in case of Mr. Sahoo i.e. provisional pension and unutilized leave had already been sanctioned in favour of Mr. Sahoo. As far as other payments are concerned, i.e. pension and gratuity and interest, if any, can be released to him only after the vigilance proceeding is over. In case some recovery is to be affected that can be done from the gratuity to be paid to Mr. Sahoo. The action of the Govt. regarding payment of retiral benefits to Sri Sahoo so far

as per Rules and Regulations and I do not feel that any intervention or direction is required on our part to be given to Govt. Since there is no merit as far as the claim of the applicant is concerned, the OA is dismissed and the case is disposed of accordingly."

5.

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any error in the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the tribunal in O.A. No. 2756(C) of 2013. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Alok ...........................

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE .....................................

(SAVITRI RATHO) JUDGE