The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.8503 of 2025 Subasa Chandra Swain ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Swapnil Roy State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 25.03.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule “NISI” to the Opposite Parties to show cause as to; (i) Why the impugned office order dated 12.09.2024 passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-5 in issuing a direction to recover the outstanding loan amount from the petitioner in EMIs from the pension amount in Page 1 of 5. the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and liable to be set aside; and (ii) Why the impugned communication dated 16.01.2025 issued by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-6 in issuing a direction to recover the outstanding loan amount from the petitioner in EMIs from the pension amount in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and liable to be set aside; and (iii) Why Opposite Party No.2 will not be directed to issue clearance certificate in favour of the petitioner basing on the communication dated 23.11.2006 issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-3 within a stipulated time; And if the Opposite Parties do not show cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3 availed a housing loan of Rs.50,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2 on 26.04.2000. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.3 deducted the installment in respect of the housing loan and the same was repaid to the Opposite Party No.2. He further referred to the letter under Annexure-2 dated 26.09.2000 under which there was an arrangement for the Opposite Party No.3 to deduct the EMI from the salary of the Petitioner and to deposit the same before the Opposite Party No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after repayment of the entire loan dues in 72 installments, Opposite Party No.3 Page 2 of 5. requested the Opposite Party No.2 to issue a clearance certificate with regard to repayment of the total 72 installments vide their letter dated 23.11.2006 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. While this was the position, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.2007. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after the retirement of the Petitioner,he has been paid provisional pension by the Opposite Party No.3 and that since there was no due outstanding, the loan amount of the Petitioner was closed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Finally, after expiry of one and half decades, on 12.09.2004, Opposite Party No.3 issued a letter for recovery of the housing loan from the present Petitioner which he had availed in the year 2000 and the entire loan was repaid in 72 monthly installments by 2006. Further, the letter dated 12.09.2024 under Annexure-5 reveals that a sum of Rs.2,16,157/- is required to be recovered from the pensionary benefits from the Petitioner in 60installments @ Rs.3,700/- each. Again another letter was received by the Petitioner dated 16.01.2025 from the office of the Opposite Party No.2 wherein he has been intimated that the Petitioner is required to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.74,641/- towards outstanding loan dues. Being aggrieved the aforesaid letters dated 12.09.2024 under Annexure-5 and 16.01.2025 under Annexure-6, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Page 3 of 5. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner although had availed a housing loan from the Opposite party No.2, however, he has paid the entire dues in 72 monthly installments before his retirement in the year 2007. Therefore, there is no outstanding, so far the present Petitioner is concerned. He further prayed that impugned letters under Annexures-5 and 6 be quashed and the Opposite Party No.2 be directed to furnish the “No Due Certificate” to the Petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties before approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that he has no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner and to verify the account statements and in the event it is found that the Petitioner has in fact repaid the entire amount, then necessary consequential orders be passed within a stipulated period of time. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the record, further taking into consideration the grievance involved in the present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Petitioner to file a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents before the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 shall first reconcile the loan Page 4 of 5. account of the Petitioner and verify the same and in the event it is found that the Petitioner has in fact paid the entire dues in 72 EMIs, then necessary clearance certificate be issued in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of coming to such a conclusion. 9. In view of the aforesaid direction, the letters under Annexures-5 and 6 shall not be given effect to for a period of three months. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 02-Apr-2025 16:16:33 Page 5 of 5.