Orissa High Court

Sukanti Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 3 September, 2025

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            W.P.(C) NO. 21286 OF 2024

       In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
       the Constitution of India.

       Sukanti Sahoo                                      ....             Petitioner

                                         -Versus-

       State of Odisha & others                           ....          Opp. Parties

       Advocates appeared in this case:

       For Petitioner         :    M/s. Sameer Kumar Das, P.K. Behera
                                   and N. Jena, Advocates

       For Opp. Parties:           Mr. U.C. Behura,
                                   Addl. Government Advocate

       CORAM:

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                                    JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECIDED ON : 03.09.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following

prayers:

"Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to quash the order dtd:12.12.2023 of the Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-3 and direct the Opp.Parties to release the final pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner with accrued interest minimum @ 8% per annum within a stipulation period and deem fit and proper;"(sic)

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/emolument way back in

2013-14, especially when he has been in the evening of his life without

considering equitous elements in the light of Apex Court decision in

Jogeswar Sahoo v. The District Judge: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 396.

(b) 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.

(c) OPs are not justified in not sanctioning/releasing regular pension

and other terminal benefits only on the ground that some amount is

allegedly due from the petitioner, without quantifying what is due and

whether the same is equal to or exceeds all the terminal benefits.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the opposite parties resists the

petition contending that the petitioner was not entitled to a particular

Grade Pay/Pay Band which was higher than the one admissible to his

post and, therefore, recovery is directed to be made from the Gratuity,

since it is nothing but public money; the non-sanctioning of regular

pension is due to pendency of this petition and that the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief, including the interest on the terminal benefits

payable to him. He repels the invocation of the ratio in Jogeswar Sahoo

supra. 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 retired from service in 2023 having put in a long

and spotless service. She did not hold any big post or a glorious

designation. As a teacher, she has served the community of taught with

no complaint whatsoever. Now, she has been in the evening of her life,

having structured her domestic financial policies on the basis of the

salary founded on her last pay scale drawn. The alleged excess payment

is founded not on account of any fraud of misrepresentation but because

of the applying of arguably a wrong principle whilst calculating the

pay/allowances in the light of some circulars. Sanctioning of the Grade

Pay/Pay Band was way back in the year 2013-14. The impugned order

has been issued about a decade thereafter, that too post retirement. This

militates against the rules of reason and justice.

4.2. The Apex Court in Jogeswar Sahoo supra at paragraph 12 has observed as under:

"In Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants-teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalized Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The Court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by Courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held thus:

"59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction..."

That being the position, abruptly and unilaterally telling her that a

particular pay scale was not admissible to her, that too several years

after, is not fair & reasonable, more particularly when no culpability is

attributed to the petitioner in bestowing upon her subject pay scale way

back in 2013-14.

4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in pressing into

service Apex Court decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, AIR

2015 SC 696, inasmuch as his client belongs to Group-C, in view of

General Administration & Public Grievance Department's Instruction

dated 9th February, 2018 vide Table-4. Even otherwise, the case of the

petitioner travels to para 12(ii) of the above judgment, inasmuch as the

concerned pay scale was accorded to the petitioner way back in the year

2013 whereas the recovery order has been issued after retirement, which

is obvious beyond five years. Nothing is forthcoming as to what action

has been taken against the erring officials who allegedly accorded the so

called inadmissible Grade Pay. No explanation is offered for brooking a

delay of about a decade for discovering the anomaly in allowing the

subject Grade Pay in the year 2013-14.

4.4. There is yet another error apparent on the face of record: The

answering OPs ought to have quantified the so called excess amount

before holding back the issuance of regular Pension Payment Order in a

wholesale way and arbitrarily. The question of fair standards in State

action thus stares at the OPs. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right

in telling that there is no illegality or irregularity in sanctioning the

Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to his client who was given promotion to Level-

IV on 09.01.2013 and to Level-III on 24.04.2014 sans any additional

financial benefit or revision of pay, as she was already granted the 2nd

RACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- and 3rd RACP in the Grade Pay of

Rs.4,600/-. This view is supported by para-10 of Government

Resolution No.3560 dated 06.02.2013, which reads as under:

"10. Benefit of pay fixation available at the time of regular

promotion shall also be allowed at the time of financial upgradation under the Scheme, which means the pay shall be raised by 3% of the total of pay in the Pay Band and the Grade Pay drawn before such upgradation. The employees of the cadre having promotional hierarchy will get the Grade Pay of the promotional post. The employees in isolated/ ex- cadre posts not having any promotional hierarchy will get the next higher Grade Pay as per the first schedule of ORSP Rules, 2008 with the interpolations, if any introduced subsequently. In case the new Grade Pay corresponds to a different Pay Band, the employee will get the Pay Band corresponding to the revised Grade Pay. There shall, however, be no further fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion."

4.5. It hardly needs to be stated that the pension & terminal benefits

are not a matter of bounty but of justiciable right vide D.S. Nakara v.

Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130. Learned counsel for the petitioner is

also right in telling the Court that for unjustified withholding of terminal

benefits beyond one year, the OPs are liable to pay interest at the rate of

7% per annum under the extant Rules/Circulars. That view is reflected

in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356.

Though this interest rate is inadequate, much interference in that is not

warranted since admittedly petitioner is drawing provisional pension.

Suffice it to say that regular pension should be sanctioned and other

terminal benefits should also be released in a time bound way.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of