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. Page 3 of 5 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