Pradipta Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others

Dixit Krishna Shripad, J

Petitioner gained employment as a Lecturer in Zoology vide appointment order dated 12.01.1989. This was made after selection conducted by the Governing Body then. He reported for duty with effect from 16.01.1989. Petitioner’s appointment came to be validated in terms of the Validation Act, 1998 with effect from 01.04.1992, presumably the issue as to validity of a class of such employees having cropped up in the State. He gained promotion to the post of Reader as it then was with retrospective effect from 01.04.2019 pursuant to order dated 10.02.2021. He demitted office on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2023. Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 02.12.20.23 (Annexure-11) whereby the Special Secretary to Government in the Department of Higher Education has in a way indefinitely held up the terminal benefits of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is not coming forward despite granting abundant opportunity to produce the educational certificates and therefore, the inquiry be kept open against him in eternity. With that ground, the impugned order rejects petitioner’s representation dated 23.04.2022 for grant of terminal benefits including the pension etc.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pressing into service the decision of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130, submits that pension being consideration for the past service rendered by an employee, has to be sanctioned & released to the petitioner especially when there is no fault on his part. He also draws attention of the Court to the checkered history of the case, which involved certain allegations made against the petitioner as to procurement of public employment by production of fake certificates. The efforts of complainant having failed, some other persons lodged FIR in Brahmagir Police Station against the petitioner and filed CRLMP No.791 of 2022 before this Court, which came to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- vide order dated 25.01.2023. The matter was carried forward to the Apex Court with no avail. He also adds that the investigation was conducted by the Crime Branch of the State and the report exonerating the petitioner from all charges was prepared on 30.12.2023. Therefore, he submits, the opposite parties are liable to sanction & release all terminal benefits with interest.

After service of notice, opposite parties having entered appearance through the learned AGA, have filed the counter resisting the petition. Mr.Mohanty, learned AGA vehemently contends that once the public employment is procured by producing fake certificates, no benefit can be derived by the employee since fraud & fabrication vitiate everything and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction, which is meant for scrupulous litigants. He also tells that despite granting abundant opportunity, petitioner failed to produce genuine certificates or documents to vouch his claim that he had studied I.Sc. in 1980, B.Sc. in 1982, & M.Sc. in 1985 and only thereafter in a scrupulous way, he got entry to public employment.

Lastly, he also argues that fraud vitiates everything vide S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu V. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and therefore, petition is liable to be rejected.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

i) There was a selection process, which eventually resulted into issuance of appointment order to the petitioner on 12.01.1989 as a Lecturer in Zoology; petitioner reported for duty on 16.01.1989. He earned promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 10.02.2021 and he retired on 28.02.2023. All this is not at all in dispute. Petitioner has been paid salary attached to the post in question in which he worked is also not in dispute. However, counsel for the petitioner makes it clear that the salary for the last month preceding the retirement has not been paid. Be that as it may, the allegation as to petitioner having produced fabricated documents secured public employment was made way back in the year 2019 and it was none other than by his brother-in-law, namely, Gajendra Pradhan. That person has filed W.P.(C) No.4468 of 2019 by making the said allegation wherein petitioner happened to be Opposite Party No.8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.03.2019 ex parte directed the authorities to take a decision on the representation filed by said Gajendra Pradhan. Petitioner filed W.A. No.283 of 2019 and Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.07.2019, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the allegation made against the petitioner by the complainant came to an end.

ii) Another person, namely, Biswajit Patnaik, had tried to lodge a complaint against the petitioner in Brahmagiri Police Station. Since it was not registered by the police, he had filed CRLMP No.791 of 2022 before this Court, which dismissed it vide order dated 25.01.2023 with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, he carried the matter further to the Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No.2257 of 2023 and that too came to be negatived vide order dated 02.02.2024. Thus, all allegations made against the petitioner were put to descent burial once for all. Admittedly, the allegations as to procurement of employment by producing false documents was known to the opposite parties long before and more precisely when the complaint was made by his brother-in-law way-back in the year 2009. Thereafter, the records reveal, the Crime Branch of Police having investigated into the matter, gave a clean chit to the petitioner vide Report dated 30.12.2023. This would weigh heavily in favour of the petitioner.

iii) The stand of the opposite parties that the petitioner did not come forward despite issuance of notices several times, with evidentiary material to vouch his stand that the documents are not spurious and therefore, the terminal benefits have not been given to him is very difficult to countenance. As already mentioned, in January, 1989, he was given initial appointment; in 2021, he was given promotion with retrospective effect from 2019 as a Reader. Thereafter, he retired in February, 2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. The contention that petitioner did not come-forward with the required documents would not come to the rescue of opposite parties, who could by all means have held an ex parte inquiry, if they wanted. There is no justification whatsoever for holding any inquiry when already on this side and on the criminal side, matter having been investigated into all allegations were found false and a clean chit is issued to the petitioner. In that fact matrix, no purpose would be served by keeping the contemplated inquiry pending against the petitioner in eternity.

iv. Counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in submitting that pension is no longer a bounty after the decision of the Apex Court in Deokinanda Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 followed by D.S. Nakara V. Union of India, AIR 1983 130 withholding of pension is also in a way offensive to Article 300-A jurisprudence in the light of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Limited v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1. The money payable to retired employee is his property and therefore, withholding it indefinitely amounts to its acquisition, at least temporarily. Such an act on the part of opposite parties would put the retired employees to untold hardship in difficult days like this when bread is costlier than blood. How a retired employee would be able to hold his body & soul together without any life support, needs to be imagined. The State & its officials have to conduct themselves as model employers, observed Apex Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. There is absolutely no reason or rhyme for withholding pension & other terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. Such things should not happen to other employees, who are going to retire. The retires should be treated with honour & dignity; this is a constitutional imperative under the Directive Principles. Petitioner has been given an unfair treatment, if not cruel; one cannot go with impunity. Exemplary costs need to be levied.

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order (Annexure-11) coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to Opposite Party No.2 to sanction & release all terminal benefits in favour of the petitioner in an outer limit of eight (8) weeks with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be reckoned from the date on which they ought to have been released.

This Court intended to levy exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh). However, it refrains from doing it on the passionate submission of Mr.Mohanty, learned AGA and the grace shown by Mr.Swain, learned counsel representing the petitioner. However, costs would become payable, if this order is not complied within the time stipulated.

Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.