JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - Filing the writ petition, the petitioner-Orissa State Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. has assailed the order passed by the Hon’ble Lokpal, Orissa involving Case No.331-LP (G) of 2011 appearing at Annexure-3. 2. Undisputed fact remains is O.P. 1, an ex-cadre Secretary of CARD Bank, Bargarh superannuated from his service on 31.7.2009 filing the complaint before the Hon’ble Lokpal, Orissa, vide Case No.331-LP (G) of 2011 made claim over his retiral dues, gratuity, encashment of unutilized leave from his employer and the above proceeding has been concluded by passing of the impugned order, Annexure-3 challenged herein. 3. Challenging the impugned order, Sri Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner raising the authority of Hon’ble Lokpal in the involved matter submitted that the Hon’ble Lokpal has no authority to take up the issue involved therein, and therefore, the direction impugned herein is without jurisdiction. Referring to the provisions contained in Sections 7 & 8 of the Orissa Lokpal and Lakyuktas Act, 1995, Sri Mishra attempted to justify his submission that the Hon’ble Lokpal has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him. Referring to a decision of this Court in Raghunath Mishra vrs. Principal Accountant General (A & E) & others reported in 2011 (II) ILR-CUT-93, Sri Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the direction therein, the decision has a direct application to the case at hand. Further for the private O.P. having a clear remedy under Section 68 of the Orissa State Cooperative Societies Act, proceeding before the Hon’ble Lokpal was not maintainable and in the above circumstances, Sri Mishra prayed this Court for interference in the impugned order and setting aside the same. 4. Sri Purohit, learned Counsel for O.P. No.1, the beneficiary by virtue of the impugned order, on the other hand, submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner was an employee of the CARD Bank and there are number of decisions of this Court entitling such employees their benefits through OSCARD Bank. Referring to the decisions of this Court in Laxmi Kanata Mohanta vrs. Orissa Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. & others. (W.P. (C) No.7970/2017 disposed of on 5.5.2017) and Orissa Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. vrs. Referring to the decisions of this Court in Laxmi Kanata Mohanta vrs. Orissa Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. & others. (W.P. (C) No.7970/2017 disposed of on 5.5.2017) and Orissa Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. vrs. Sri Sachindra Harpal (W.A. No.364/2011 disposed of on 9.9.2014) and the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court involving SLP No.3259/2015, Sri Purohit claimed that there being no dispute regarding entitlement of the petitioner, there is no infirmity in the impugned order by directing the authority to make payment. 5. Sri B. Mohanty, learned Counsel for O.P. No.2, while not disputing the proposition raised by Sri Mishra but objecting the submission of Sri Purohit, learned Counsel for O.P. No.1, submitted that the claim of the petitioner not being adjudicated by the appropriate authority, there should not be any observation with regard to entitlement of the petitioner at this stage and it should be left open to be adjudicated and directed by the competent authority. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the question of jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Lokpal, Orissa over such matters, this Court finds, Sections 7 (1) & (2), 8 (1) and 17 (3) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lakayuktas Act, 1995 read as under :’ “7. Matters which may be investigated by Lokpal or Lokayukta :- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokpal may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of – (i) a Minister or the Chief Secretary or a Secretary; or (ii) any other public servant being a public servant of a class or sub-class of public servant notified by the State Government in consultation with the Lokpal in this behalf; In any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokpal, the subject of a grievance or an allegation. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not being a Minister, the Chief Secretary or a Secretary or other public servant referred to in Sub-section (1) in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject or a grievance or any allegation. 8. Matters not subject to investigation:- (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokpal or a Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action – (a) if such action relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule; or (b) if the complainant has or had any remedy by way of proceeding before any Tribunal or Court of Law : Provided that the Lokpal or a Lokayukta may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the complainant had or has such a remedy, if the Lokpal or, as the case may be, the Lokayukta is satisfied that such person could not or cannot, for sufficient cause, have recourse to such remedy. “17. Protection – (3) Except on the ground of jurisdiction, no proceedings or decision of the Lokpal or the Lokayuktas shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court or Tribunal.” It is also relevant to take note of the provision at Section 68 of the Orissa State Cooperative Societies Act, which reads as hereunder :- “68. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Society, other than a dispute required to be referred to the Tribunal and a dispute required to be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall be referred to the Registrar if the parties thereto are among the following, namely.” (a) the Society, its Committee, past Committee, any part of present Officer or office-bearer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or the nominee, legal heir or representative of any deceased Officer, office-bearer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the Society; or (b) a member, past member, or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of the Society, or of a Society which is a member of the Society; or (c) a surety or a member, past member or a deceased member, whether such surety is or is not a member of the Society; or (d) any other Society.” 7. Considering the legal aspect involving the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Lokpal under the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 and taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, in the dispute involved in the proceeding taken up by the Hon’ble Lokpal for the clear statutory provision available to the petitioner by initiation of a proceeding under Section 68 of the Orissa State Cooperative Societies Act, the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Lokpal is completely ousted. Further looking to the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds, taking a case of objection to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Lokpal involved in the Indian Administrative Service, this Court taking into consideration of a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that such dispute cannot come within the domain of the Hon’ble Lokpal. The decision referred to herein above and as relied on by the petitioner has a direct bearing on the case at hand. Provisions contained in Sections 7 & 8 of the Act 1995 also completely exclude such disputes from the provision of the Lokpal Act. The decision referred to herein above and as relied on by the petitioner has a direct bearing on the case at hand. Provisions contained in Sections 7 & 8 of the Act 1995 also completely exclude such disputes from the provision of the Lokpal Act. Considering the legal position indicated herein above and the decisions referred to herein above and further finding that the petitioner has a clear remedy under the provision of the Orissa State Cooperative Societies Act, this Court finds, the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Lokpal is without jurisdiction and as a result, this Court while interfering with the impugned order, sets aside the order passed by the Hon’ble Lokpal at Annexure-3. While parting with the case at hand, this Court makes an observation that dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authority provided under any other law. 8. The writ petition thus stands allowed but however with the observation made herein above. No cost. Petition allowed.