[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Satyabadi Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10348 of 2026
Satyabadi Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sushanta Kumar Mishra
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.04.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application;
ii) Call for the records;
iii) To quash the order of recovery letter No.PEN-111-
1-175/2023 19469 CA dtd.20.12.2023 issued by the
Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar &
rejection letter No.3254 dtd.06.03.2026 of the B. E.O,
Khandapada under Annexure-3&4&declare the same is
contrary to the law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo vrs The District Judge
Cuttack (2025) 5 S.C.R 13. (In SLP(C) No. 5918 of
2024 disposed of on 04.04.2025).
iv) Direct the 0pp. Parties to refund the amount which
was received by the petitioner as per the pay fixation
made by the 0pp. Party No.4 on dtd.24.08.2006 &
direct to 0pp. Parties release the monthly pension of
Petitioner Rs.29,300/- basing upon the pay Rs.58,600/-
as per ACP with grade pay Rs.2200/- allowed on dtd.
24.08.2006 as similarly situated persons like petitioner
is receiving the same with in a stipulated period.
And further be pleased to pass any other order(s) /
direction(s) as would be deemed just and proper in the
interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner who was working as a Assistant Teacher was initially
issued with an appointment letter on 23.08.1991. Thereafter, the
petitioner joined in service on 24.08.1991. On the basis of the
resolution of the Finance Department, Govt. of Odisha, the Petitioner
was extended with ACP benefit after completion of 15 years' service
and such ACP benefit was extended w.e.f. 24.08.2006.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the
Petitioner on successful completion of his service tenure had retired
from service w.e.f. 30.06.2023. He further submitted that after his
retirement the Controller of Accounts, Bhubaneswar issued a letter to
B.E.O., Khandapada for recovery of some amount on the ground that
the Petitioner has been allowed a wrong grade pay and it has been
ordered to recover such excess payment to the Petitioner from his
pensionary benefits. Although, the petitioner approached the B.E.O.,
Khandapada, however, the B.E.O., Khandapada rejected his
grievance. Finally, the petitioner has approached the B.E.O.,
Khandapada by filing a representation dated 10.03.2026 at Annexure-
5 to the writ application. However, the same is still pending for final
consideration.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jogeswar Sahoo vs. The District Judge Cuttack decided in SLP(C)
No.5918 of 2024 disposed of on 04.04.2025 and reported in (2025) 5
S.C.R. 13 and stated before this Court that no recovery should be
made after retirement of the Govt. employee, unless it is found that
the employee concerning at fault. In those aforesaid propositions of
law, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the
amount was disbursed in favour of the Petitioner by the Opposite
Parties without any intervention by the Petitioner or the Petitioner
having any role in that it cannot be said that the petitioner is at fault.
In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that since the Petitioner has already retired from service
the recovery of the financial benefit would affect the Petitioner
adversely. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the decision to recover the amount from the
pensionary benefit of the Petitioner be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
he has no specific instruction in the matter. He further submitted that
the Petitioner had already submitted a representation dated
10.03.2026 at Annexure-5 before the Director of Elementary
Education of Board, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 to
the writ application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the State contended that in the event such representation still pending
before the Opposite Party No.2, he will have no objection in the
event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to take a final
decision on such representation of the Petitioner. Taking into
consideration the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner and the
decision be taken within a stipulated period of time.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts, further taking note of the contention of learned
counsel for the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
present writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to
consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.03.2026 at
Annexure-5 within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of a copy of today's order by the Petitioner. The
representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a
speaking and reasoned order and taking into consideration the
judgment in Jogeswar Sahoo's case (supra) as well as other
judgments to be relied upon and submitted before the Opposite Party
No.2 by the Petitioner at the time of communication of copies of
today's order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such final decision.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
