The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 8975 of 2024 Tuni Sahu ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 15.01.2025 Order No. 06 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the facts & circumstances stated above the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass following prayer(s): (i) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit & allow
Decision
the Writ Petition; (ii) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to direct the Opp. parties by further quashing the impugned order under Annexure-9 so far it relates to recovery of Rs. 4,84,270/- (Rupees four lakh eighty four thousand two hundred seventy) only so also the refixation / revision of pay & pension of the petitioner on the basis of reduced G.P of Rs. 2800/- by Page 1 of 5. further directing for refund of the aforesaid recovery to the petitioner along with the prevailing back interest; (iii) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to declare / hold the petitioner is entitled to get the G.P of Rs. 4200/- in lieu of 2nd RACP benefits on completion of 20 years of service as has been sanctioned in her favour as per order under Annexure-4 as correct & justified one with all consequential service & financial benefits including the retirement benefits within a time bound period for the interest of justice. (iv) And may further be pleased to pass any other order(s) as deems fit & proper for the bonafide interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was extended with the benefit of RACP with fixation of her Grade Pay at Rs.4200/- vide order dtd.12.01.2015 under Annexure-4. 4.1. It is contended that subsequently vide letter dtd.21.01.2016 under Annexure-5 when a decision was taken to reduce the Grade Pay from Rs.4200/- to Rs.2800/-, the matter was assailed before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2553 of 2016. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the aforesaid Original Application along with a batch was disposed of vide order dtd.09.11.2017 under Annexure-7 by upholding the sanction of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. It is contended that order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-7 was never assailed by the state. It is further contended that in the meantime Petitioner also attained the Page 2 of 5. age of superannuation w.e.f.31.05.2022. But while releasing the pension and pensionary benefits, a sum of Rs.4,84,270/- was recovered from her gratuity amount without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 4.3. It is contended that since benefit of Grade Pay at Rs.4200/- so sanctioned in her favour vide Annexure-4 and cancelled vide Annexure-5 was interfered with by the Tribunal with passing of the order under Annexure-7, no recovery could have been made from the retiral gratuity of the Petitioner without providing due opportunity of hearing. It is accordingly contended that recovery made from the retiral gratuity of the Petitioner as indicated in the impugned pension payment order under Annexure-9 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that the benefit extended in favour of the Petitioner vide order under Annexure-4 when was cancelled, the matter was assailed by the present Petitioner along with others by filing O.A. No. 2553 of 2016. The said Original Application along with a batch was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dtd.09.11.2017 under Annexure-7 in the light of the order passed by the self-same Tribunal in O.A. No. 2576 of 2016 & batch. 5.1. It is however contended that order passed in O.A. No. 2576 of 2016 and batch was assailed before this Court and now it is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 7374- 7375 of 2024. It is contended that since the order passed in O.A. No. 2576 of 2016 & batch is pending adjudication before the Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP, it cannot be held that the order passed under Annexure-7 has attained finality in the eye of law. It is accordingly Page 3 of 5. contended that unless and until the matter is decided by the Apex Court, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit in terms of the order passed under Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was wrongly extended with the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in place of Rs.2800/-, the excess payment amounting to Rs.4,84,270/- was recovered from her retiral gratuity as reflected in Annexure-9. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with such recovery of the amount. 6. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on the notification issued by the Govt. in the Finance Department on 12.08.2024 under Annexure-11 contended that in the meantime Govt. in the Finance Department has made the Petitioner eligible to get the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. 6.1. It is contended that even though the matter is pending before the Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 7374-7375 of 2024, but in view of the notification issued by the Finance Department on 12.08.2024, the ground on which the recovery has been made from the Petitioners’ retiral gratuity is no more sustainable. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision with regard to the alleged recovery made from the retiral gratuity of the Petitioner. 7. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner to remit the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision in the terms of the notification issued by the Finance Department on 12.08.2024 under Annexure-11. Page 4 of 5. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made and taking into account the notification issued by the Govt. in the Finance Department on 12.08.2024 under Annexure-11, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to continue with the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- so sanctioned in her favour vide Annexure-4. Opp. Party No. 2 is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such reconsideration if it is held that Petitioner is eligible to continue with the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, the amount recovered from her retiral gratuity be released. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Jan-2025 18:07:50 Page 5 of 5.