[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Lakshman Kumar Padhi vs State Of Odisha on 12 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18379 of 2018
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
----
Lakshman Kumar Padhi .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented
through its Commissioner-cum-
Secretary, School & Mass Education
Department.
2. Director of Secondary Education,
Odisha.
3. District Education Officer, Cuttack
.... Opposite Parties
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - M/s.Kunal Ku. Swain,
B.Jena, R.P.Das,
P.K.Mohapatra &
J.R. Khuntia.
For Opp. Parties - Mr.J.K. Khandayatray, ASC.
---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 12.03.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S DIXIT, J.
Petitioner, a retired Statistical Investigator, is knocking at the
doors of the Writ Court for assailing the Orissa Administrative
Tribunal's order dated 05.10.2018 (Annexure-9) whereby his O.A
No.3131(C) of 2015 has been negatived. In the said OA, he had called in
question the Screening Committee's endorsement dated 27.05.2015,
whereby his 3rd stage RACP was reduced from Rs.6600/- to Rs.5400/-
on the ground that it was wrongly conferred on him.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner canvasses a twofold argument
for voiding the order of the Tribunal: Firstly, the cadre of the Petitioner
is Group-C and therefore, post retirement no recovery could have been
ordered whether the grant was made rightly or wrongly. In support of
this, he presses into service Apex court decision in Jogeswar Sahoo v.
The District Judge, Cuttack, 2025 INSC 449, more particularly para
18(i) & (ii). Secondly, recovery of the kind could not have been made
sans an opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as recovery is a civil
consequence, which cannot be brought about in violation of principle of
natural justice. Learned ASC appearing for the opposite parties resists
the petition making submission in justification of the Tribunal's order
and the reasons on which it has been structured. He tells that the
decision in Jogeswar Sahoo supra is not applicable to the case, as
Petitioner had admittedly given an undertaking to refund he is not
entitled to. He also quotes Rule 68 of the Pension Rules, 1992 in
support of the impugned order.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in
the matter as under and for the following reasons:
3.1. Petitioner was appointed as Statistical Investigator on 17.03.1982
and he reported for duty on 19.03.1982. Initially, he was in the pay scale
of Rs.9300/- - 34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. Pursuant to the
RACP Policy, he was granted RACP-1 Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- &
RACP-2 Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- & RACP-3 Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-.
All this was w.e.f 01.03.2013, inasmuch by that, he had already put in a
long and spotless service of 30 years. It hardly needs to be stated that
first RACP is after ten years, second after 20 years and third after 30
years.
3.2. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of
hearing before the Screening Committee took the decision, may be after
verifying the factuals. Even God is said to have given an opportunity of
hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for eating the proscribed
apple in the Eden Garden. If that be so, we fail to understand why no
opportunity was given to the Petitioner before directing the recovery
pursuant to the impugned order of the Screening Committee. Thus, there is
gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the reduction
of grade pay and recovery needs to be set at naught.
3.3. The above being said, there is force in the submission of learned
ASC that in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), AIR 2015 SC
696, Jogeswar Sahoo supra and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kearala,
(2022) SCC Online 536. there was no undertaking given by the employee
while taking the benefit of the kind and therefore, that ratio in the said
decisions cannot be invoked by the Petitioner mindlessly. A decision is an
authority for the proposition that is laid down in a given fact matrix of the
case and not for all that, which would logically flow from what has been so
laid down said Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Letham, [1901] AC 495 (HL).
Once the undertaking is given, it cannot go with impunity. The submission
of Mr.Swain that the undertaking was obtained by the employer in not
equal bargaining power and therefore, keeping in view the decision of
Apex Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v.
Brojo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571, it is liable to be ignored and
further the ratio in Rafiq Masih supra becomes invokable, is bit difficult to
countenance. In Inland Water supra, the doctrine of equal bargain was
invoked in a different fact matrix than here. It was a case of breadwinning,
inasmuch as, the very employment of the employees concerned was at
stake. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.
In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds; a Writ of
Certiorari issues, quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal and
also the decision of the Screening Committee at Annexure-6. Matter
is remitted to the portals of Opposite Party No.3 for consideration
afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within
an outer limit of three (3) months. All contentions are kept open.
No costs.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 12th of March, 2026/Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
