Orissa High Court
Purna Chandra Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Others .... ... on 6 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.17694 OF 2023
Purna Chandra Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Samantaray, Advocate on behalf of
Mr.K.C.Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp.Parties
Mr. D.Lenka, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
Order No. 06.08.2025
03. Petitioner, a pensioner, is knocking at the doors of Writ
Court essentially grieving against recovery of a sum of
Rs.1,29,898/- on the ground that he was paid in excess of what
he was entitled to in terms of admissible pay scale.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that:
(a) No recovery could have been made after a long lapse
of time post-sanctioning of alleged wrong pay scale, especially
when the petitioner has been in the evening of his life without
considering equitous elements in the light of Apex Court
decision Jogeswar Sahoo v. The District Judge, Cuttack :
2025 LiveLaw 9SC) 396.
(b) The impugned recovery being unilateral is in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice. Had the petitioner
been given an opportunity of hearing, he would have put forth
his justification for resisting the recovery.
(c) The State being a Model Employer has to conduct
itself with the humane approach in the light of Bhupendra
Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2013) 2 SCC 516,
especially when there was no culpability attributed to the
petitioner.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the opposite parties
opposes the petitioner contending that the petitioner was not
entitled to a particular pay scale which was higher than the one
admissible to his post and, therefore, recovery has been made
from the pension, the money being of State Exchequer; no
purpose would be served even if an opportunity of hearing is
given to the petitioner after remitting the matter for fresh
consideration. So contending, he seeks dismissal of writ
petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to
grant indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner, for the following
reasons.
4.1. Petitioner has put in a long a spotless service. He did
not hold any big post or a glorious designation. As a teacher,
he has served the community of taught with no complaint
whatsoever. Having retired on superannuation, he has been in
the evening of his life, having structured his domestic financial
policies on the basis of the pension founded on his last pay
scale drawn. That being the position, abruptly and unilaterally
telling him that a particular pay scale was not admissible to
him, that too several years after, is not fair & reasonable, more
particularly when no culpability is attributed to the petitioner
in the matter of according the subject pay scale.
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner may not be much
justified in pressing into service Apex Court decision in State
of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, AIR 2015 SC 696, as rightly
contended by learned State Counsel, inasmuch as he belongs
to Group-B category and not Group-C & D mentioned in the
said decision. That being said, the action of the OPs has to
accord with reason & justice, and the impugned recovery lacks
equitous elements in the light of Apex Court decision in
Jogeswar Sahu supra. The State & its officials have to conduct
themselves as Model Employers, vide Bhupendra Nath
Hazarika supra and that they should treat the pensioners with
soft gloves, since they have already shed their sweat in the
discharge of their duties for decades, and now they are in the
evening of life. Even otherwise, the amount involved is small.
Further, the pensioner is before this Court in the second round
litigation.
4.3. Added to the above, the impugned action is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the principles of
natural justice are a facet of that provision and no justification
is offered for not complying with said principles. There is
force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that
no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter
for fresh consideration, at this length of time. A retired
employee cannot be compelled to approach the Court again &
again. For litigants of the kind, Courts are not a happy place
and they come here with no joy in heart. Justice of the case
warrants that whatever has been recovered, has to be restored
to the petitioner, although what is payable as pension can be
on the basis of rectified pay scale, hereafter.
4.4. Learned State Counsel's apprehension that this
decision should not become a precedent for others to cite in
support of refund of recovered amount or to resist lawful
recovery from the pension, may not be justified, inasmuch as
we have rendered this judgment in the peculiar fact matrix of
the case and, therefore, obviously it lacks precedential
elements. This clarification would take care of the
apprehension expressed on behalf of the OPs.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds
in part. The impugned action of recovery is quashed by
issuing of Writ of Certiorari, coupled with a Mandamus to the
OPs to refund a sum of Rs.1,29,898/- (rupees one lakh twenty-
nine thousand eight hundred & ninety eight) only to the
petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks, failing which
delay will carry interest @ 1% per mensem; the interest
component, after remittance to the petitioner, may be
recovered from the erring officials personally.
No costs.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Manoj
