Rabindra Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1018 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rabindra Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 5 February, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                 WP(C) No. 11415 of 2023
Rabindra Kumar Jena          .....       Petitioner
                                                      Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
                                    -versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.                 .....              Opposite Parties
                                                         Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
                                                         Mr. S.K. Patra, Advocate
                                                           (Opp. Party No. 2)
                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

05.02.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) quash the Order, dated 09.10.2023 as at Annexure-4 passed by the Opp. Party No.3 to cancel the stepping of pay benefits, sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner since 06.06.2019 and Order for recovery as the same is violative of principles of natural justice as well as the settled principles of law, laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others -Vrs- Rafiq Masih & Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 for the interest of justice;

(ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray."

4. It is contended that on the retirement of the Petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2018, vide Annexure-2 Pension Payment Order, Petitioner's monthly pension was fixed at Rs.9,240/-. However, while in receipt of such pension so sanctioned vide Annexure-2, pension of the Petitioner was reduced to Rs.8,300/- w.e.f.01.12.2018 so sanctioned earlier vide Annexure-5 communication dtd.16.03.2023.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that such a letter was issued by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5 in reducing the pension, basing on the letter issued by the Collector, Puri-Opp. Party No. 6 on 08.07.2022.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that prior to reducing the pension of the Petitioner basing on letter dtd.08.07.2022 of Collector, Puri, Petitioner was never given an opportunity of hearing nor such a letter issued by the Collector on 08.07.2022 was ever communicated to the Petitioner. It is also contended that since prior to reducing the pension of the Petitioner vide Annexure-5, basing on letter dtd.08.07.2022 of Opp. Party No. 6, Petitioner was never given an opportunity of hearing, such a reduction could not have been made. It is accordingly contended that Annexure-5 is required to be interfered with.

5. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 2 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that after sanction of the

pension vide Annexure-2, when Opp. Party No. 6 vide his letter dtd.08.07.022 under Annexure-D/2, held the Petitioner entitled to get pension of Rs.8300/- in place of Rs.9240/-, in terms of the said letter, Petitioner's pension was revised and necessary communication was made under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that since Opp. Party No. 2 basing on Annexure-D/2 has reduced the pension, no illegality can be found with the same.

6. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 18.04.2023 with passing of an interim order, but no counter affidavit has been filed by the State as yet. It is however contended that since Petitioner after being sanctioned with monthly pension of Rs.9240/-, it was found that he is not eligible to get the said amount by Opp. Party No. 6, letter under Annexure-D/2 to the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 2 was issued by Opp. Party No. 6. It is accordingly contended that since Opp. Party No. 6 is the pension sanctioning authority and subsequent to sanction of the pension, it is found that Petitioner is not eligible to get the pension so sanctioned vide Annexure-2, Annexure-D/2 was issued and the same was acted upon by Opp. Party No. 2 with revision of the pension to Rs.8300/- with due intimation to the Petitioner vide Annexure-5.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner after his retirement from service on 30.11.2018, pension was sanctioned in his favour vide PPO issued under Annexure-2. In the said PPO, Petitioner's monthly pension was fixed at Rs.9240/-. However, pension of the Petitioner was reduced to Rs.8300/- vide Annexure-5 taking into account the letter issued by Opp. Party No. 6 on 08.07.2022 under Annexure-D/2.

7.1. This Court after going through Annexure-D/2 finds that such a communication was never issued to the Petitioner and basing on such communication, Petitioner's pension was reduced to Rs.8300/- with due communication vide the impugned letter dtd.16.03.2023 under Annexure-5 of Opp. Party No. 5.

7.2. Since prior to reducing the pension of the Petitioner basing on Annexure-D/2, neither the said communication was provided to the Petitioner nor any opportunity was given to the Petitioner either by Opp. Party No. 6 or by Opp. Party No. 2, it is the view of this Court that such reduction of the pension could not have been made without following the principle of natural justice. It is also found that reduction of such pension has been stayed by this Court vide its order dtd.18.04.2023.

7.3. In that view of the matter, this Court while quashing Annexure- 5, directs Opp. Party No. 6 to take a fresh decision with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to get the pension at Rs.9240/-. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 6 to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks hence. Till such a fresh decision is taken with due communication and taking into account the nature of interim order passed on 18.04.2023, pension sanctioned vide Annexure-2 be continued with.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

Reason: Authentication (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Judge Date: 09-Feb-2026 10:43:25 Sneha