(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Rabi Narayan v. State of Odisha and others
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 14:06:32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32729 of 2020 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Rabi Narayan Sahu …… Petitioner Versus State of Odisha and others …... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Somya Mishra, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 25th August 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The original Petitioner, namely, Rabi Narayan Sahu (since dead) served as Assistant Teacher in Mohouri Kalua High School, Langal Dei under the District Education Officer, Ganjam. As per order dated 31st July 2012 (Annexure-7), the arrear of the Petitioner was released w.e.f. 1.3.1991 till 30.4.1991 and 1.5.1991 till 31.5.1994 with revision of the W.P.(C) No.32729 of 2020 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 14:06:32 pay. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.1.2018, the District Education Officer (Annexure-10) directed for withdrawal of the excess amount made in favour of the original Petitioner as per the order under Annexure-7 on the ground that the same has been disbursed inadvertently. In the meantime, the Petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2019 and consequent to his retirement, the aforesaid amount stated to be drawn excess by the Petitioner was deducted from his retirement gratuity as per Annexure-16. Earlier he filed W.P.(C) No.8469 of 2018 before this Court and pursuant to the direction of this Court, the District Education Officer, Ganjam vide his order dated 19.11.2019 considered the grievance of the Petitioner regarding such recovery of the excess drawal and rejected his prayer against the same. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of recovery under Annexure-8, 10 & 15 with further prayer to refund the said amount in favour of the original Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner being died pending writ petition, his LRs have been substituted. 4. The State has filed its counter admitting the fact that such excess amount of arrear salary was released in favour of the original Petitioner inadvertently and upon detection of the same subsequently the authority W.P.(C) No.32729 of 2020 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 14:06:32 directed for recovery of those amounts from the Petitioner under Annexure-10. 5. On such background facts averred by the parties, it remains true that the original Petitioner did not play any misrepresentation before the authority to get release of his arrear salary for that period. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vrs. Rafiq Masih (While Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, have observed 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. 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 W.P.(C) No.32729 of 2020 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 14:06:32 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.” 6. In the case at hand, admittedly the order of recovery dated 25.1.2018 is beyond five years and six months of its release. When it is undisputed that the Petitioner did not play any role in release of such amount in his favour either by misrepresentation or by any act of fraud, it is the Opposite Parties who released the amount in favour of the Petitioner pursuant to the order under Annexures - 6 and 7. The pay has been fixed accordingly by the District Education Officer, Ganjam as per Annexure-7. 7. While the matter stood thus and the authority has directed for recovery of the amount allegedly drawn excessively in favour of the Petitioner, the same was recovered from his retirement gratuity. In other words, while pending consideration of the grievance of the Petitioner in terms of the earlier direction of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.8469 of 2018, the retirement gratuity was paid after deduction of such amount by the authority. Therefore the Petitioner did not have any scope to object for deduction of such amount from his entitlement. In view of the W.P.(C) No.32729 of 2020 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 14:06:32 position of law described in the afore-stated case, the authorities are found unjustified in making such recovery of the amount from Petitioner’s entitlement and therefore, this Court while holding that such recovery made from the entitlement of the original Petitioner i.e. from his retirement gratuity as illegal, is inclined to direct to the Opposite Parties to refund such amount in favour of the present Petitioners. 8.
Decision
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by quashing the order of recovery under Annexure-10 and the impugned order under Annexure-15 with a further direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount deducted as per Annexure-16, i.e. Rs.84,368/-, in favour of present petitioners within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (B.P.Routray) Judge // C.R. Biswal, A.R.-Cum-Sr.Secy// W.P.(C) No.32729 of 2020 Page 5 of 5