IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.13086 of 2021 Bipra Charan Bisoi …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. S.K. Patra, Adv. (for O.P. No.8) COROM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 02.02.2026 5. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: Under the above facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to quash the order of recovery passed under Annexure-12 and Annexure-16 by directing the Opp. Parties especially O.P. NO.5 and 6 to revise and rectify the same after obtaining necessary clarifications from the Finance Department as required under Annexure-4; And/or any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper may be passed to meet the ends of justice; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray. 4. It is contended that Petitioner after his retirement on 30.04.2018, pay revised w.e.f 01.01.2013 was suo moto withdrawn with a direction to pay back a sum of Rs.2,83,395/- vide letter dt.24.11.2020 under Annexure-12 of Opp. party No.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that challenging such recovery, Petitioner though made a detailed representation before the Principal Accountant General under Anenxure-16 with a copy to Opp. Party No.5, but such prayer of the Petitioner was also rejected by upholding the recovery vide the impugned communication dt.25.02.2021 under Annexure-17. 4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner while in receipt of the revised pay so allowed w.e.f 01.01.2013 retired from service on 30.04.2018, benefit of such revision of pay could not have been withdrawn with the direction to refund a sum of Rs.2,83,395/-. It is accordingly contended that since the revised pay so allowed in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2013, was withdrawn suo moto without following the principle of natural justice with recovery of Rs.2,83,395/- vide Annexure-12, so confirmed vide Annexure-17, the same are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that since while considering the pension papers of the Petitioner, it was found that the pay of the Petitioner has been wrongly revised w.e.f 1.1.2013, on fixation of the actual pay as due and admissible, it was found that Petitioner is liable to pay back a sum of Rs.2,83,395/-, so communicated vide letter dt.24.11.2020 under Annexure-M/5. The recovery so intimated was also re-affirmed, while considering the Petitioner’s grievance vide Annexure-N/5 communication dt.25.02.2021. It is accordingly contended that since while refixing the pay so sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2013, Petitioner was held liable to pay the excess payment made to the tune of Rs.2,83,395/-, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned direction. 6. To the stand taken in the counter affidavit, Mr.P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the counter affidavit so filed, no document has been enclosed that prior to such refixation of the pay, so allowed earlier w.e.f 01.01.2013, Petitioner was ever noticed nor any opportunity of hearing was provided. 7. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General-Opp. party No.8 however contended that such a recovery has been made towards arrear house rent as due to the Petitioner and it is not due to refixation of the pay, so allowed w.e.f 1.1.2013. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner while continuing in service, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2018. After such retirement of the Petitioner, while revising the pay so sanctioned w.e.f 01.01.2013, vide order dt.24.11.2020 under Annexure-12, Petitioner was directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,83,395/-. Even though Petitioner made an application for re-consideration of such recovery, but the same was rejected vide impugned communication dt.25.02.2021 under Annexure-17. 8.1. Since in the counter affidavit so filed by the State, no document has been enclosed showing compliance of the principle of natural justice, prior to such revision of the pay of the Petitioner with the recovery as indicated, this Court on the ground of non-compliance of principle of natural justice, is inclined to quash the recovery so indicated in the impugned communication dt.24.11.2020 under Annexure-12, further affirmed in the impugned communication dt.25.02.2021 under Annexure-17. While quashing the demand so raised under Annexures-12 & 17, this Court remits the matter to Opp. party No.5 to take a fresh decision with regard to the refixation of the Pay and consequential recovery so indicated in Annexure-12 by following the principles of natural justice and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita