Khadal Bisoi vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 4 February, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              WP(C) No. 15227 of 2022
Khadal Bisoi              .....       Petitioner
                                                        Mr. R.R. Ray, Advocate
                                      -versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.                   .....              Opposite Parties
                                                            Mr. S.P. Das, ASC


                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

04.02.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. R.R. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

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

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore most humbly prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased enough to admit this Writ Petition, issue notice to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why,

i) the petitioner shall not be allowed the RACPS benefits stage wise in 10/20 and 30 years of continuous service in one post and grade as per the Finance Dept. Resolution dated 06.02.2013, and quash the rejection order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the Opp. Party No- 2, under Annexure- 4,

ii) a direction shall not be issued to the Opp. Parties to refund the amount recovered from him as the petitioner is a

Class- III employee, recovery is not permissible under the law,

iii) a direction shall not be issued to the Opp. Parties to revise and refix his pay structure stage wise in completion of 10/20 and 30 years of service.

iv) a direction shall not be issued to disburse him all the consequential and service benefits including arrear salary to which the petitioner is entitled to.

And/or may pass any other order(s), direction(s) to the facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble Court would deem just, fit and proper

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

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that on the face of his eligibility to get the benefit of RACP in terms of Finance Department Resolution dtd.06.02.2013 under Annexure-5, Petitioner when was not extended with the benefit, on the face of his request made before Opp. Party No. 2, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2825 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.06.02.2020 under Annexure- 1 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner's claim, his claim was rejected by Opp. Party NO. 2 vide order dtd.02.07.2020 under Annexure-2. Such claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that Petitioner since was unfit for promotion, he cannot be extended with the benefit of RACP, which is a ground sine qua non for such extension of the benefit.

4.1. It is contended that challenging such order passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-2, Petitioner made an appeal before the said authority for reconsideration of the matter. However, when no action

was taken, Petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 31221 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.13.01.2021 under Annexure-3, when directed for consideration of the appeal so filed, Opp. Party No. 2 once again rejected the same vide the impugned order dtd.05.04.2021 under Annexure-4. Opp. Party No. 2 once again by holding that Petitioner since is not eligible for promotion, the benefit of RACP so allowed in favour of the Petitioner was withdrawn and Petitioner was not held eligible to get the benefit, as he is unsuitable for promotion.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner on consideration of his claim was extended with the benefit of RACP and subsequently it was recalled, Petitioner claiming the said benefit once again moved Opp. Party No. 2. However, basing on the order passed by this Court under Annexure-1 and 3, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit once again was not only rejected vide orders under Annexure-2 & 4, but also Petitioner has been directed to pay back the excess amount drawn by him towards RACP till the said benefit was withdrawn basing on the Finance Department Memorandum dtd.20.01.2014.

4.3. It is also contended that Petitioner was not found eligible to get the benefit of promotion because of medical issues and the same cannot be taken as a bar in extending the benefit of RACP. It is also contended that since without any fault of his own, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of RACP for certain period, which was subsequently withdrawn, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 was followed in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in

2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 as well as Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. (SLP(C) No. 5918 of 2024), Petitioner is not liable for refund of the excess amount so drawn by him.

4.4. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 18 of the Judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih and in the case of Thomas Daniel has held as follows:-

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. But that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

xxxx xxxx xxxx

18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of

recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

4.5. It is accordingly contended that this Court while interfering with the order of recovery, may grant liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the action of the Opp. Parties in depriving him from getting the benefit of promotion.

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that Petitioner when was found to have been wrongly extended with the benefit of RACP, the same was cancelled in terms of order issued on 21.04.2018 under Annexure-9. Claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit once again was duly considered and rejected vide orders issued under Annexure-2 & 4. It is however contended that since Petitioner was extended with the benefit wrongly for certain period in

view of the order issued under Annexure-9, Petitioner is liable to pay back the excess amount drawn by him towards the said benefit to the tune of Rs.1,05,146/-. It is also contended that since Petitioner was found ineligible to get the benefit of promotion, in view of the stipulation contained in Finance Department Memorandum dtd.20.01.2014 under Annexure-A/3, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of RACP so sanctioned wrongly in his favour.

5.1. Making all these submissions, learned ASC contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of RACP once again has not only been rightly rejected vide orders under Annexure-2 & 4 but also he is liable to pay back the excess amount drawn by him to the tune of Rs.1,05,146/-.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially extended with the benefit of RACP vide order issued in that regard along with other police personnel on 08.12.2015, 27.07.2016 and 28.02.2017. However, the said benefit of RACP was cancelled vide order dtd.21.04.2018 under Annexure-9. Claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit once again pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Annexure-1 & 3, was rejected by Opp. Party No. 2 vide orders issued under Annexure-2 & 4. Such claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit once again was rejected on the ground that Petitioner since was not held eligible to get the benefit of promotion in view of the stipulation contained in Annexure-A/3, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of RACP once again.

6.1. This Court taking into account the fact that Petitioner was extended with the benefit of RACP initially and the same was only cancelled

vide order dtd.21.04.2018 under Annexure-9, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih as well as Thomas Danial as cited (supra), is of the view that Petitioner is not liable to refund the excess amount to the tune of Rs.1,05,146/-. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order of recovery so passed against the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.1, 05,146/-.

6.2. This Court taking into account the stand of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that Petitioner was held ineligible to get the benefit of promotion because of medical issue, grants him liberty to raise his claim to get the benefit of promotion once again before Opp. Party No. 2 for its consideration in accordance with law.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack