IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9755 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Sarbeswar Giri …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. S.K. Patra, Advocate for O.P. No.3 PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:19.01.2026 and Date of Judgment:19.01.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.3. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble court may graciously be _ pleased to, I) Quash the impugned order dt. 05-08- 2019 as at annexure-6. II) Direct/order that the stipendiary engineer service period shall count for the purpose of pension as per the provisions of Section -3(3) of the validation act and the pension & gratuity of the petitioner shall not be reduced. III) Direct/Order that the qualifying period of service for counting pension cannot be reduced or changed unilaterally without any prior notice and without affording opportunity of hearing and consequently the pension amount originally fixed cannot be reduced. IV) Direct/order that the amount already recovered unilaterally from the bank account of the petitioner shall be refunded with interest thereon within a stipulated period. V) Pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. It is contended that petitioner while continuing in service, his services was validated vide Notification dated 15.02.2003, so issued under Annexure-3. In the said Notification, petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.40. It is contended that basing on such validation of his appointment, petitioner not only continued in service but also attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2013. 3.1. It is also contended that on such retirement of the petitioner, petitioner was extended with the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits and so also revision of his pension as per 7th CPC. It is however contended that after such extension of the benefit, Opp. Party No.5 vide his letter dated 05.04.2018 under Annexure-5, when held that petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of pay fixation, on the face of such validation of his appointment, without issuing any notice and without following the principles of natural justice, not only pay of the petitioner was revised, but also pension of the petitioner was revised. While revising the pension, a sum of Rs.1,63,435/- was recovered from the pension of the petitioner and a sum of Rs.1,01,640/- was recovered from his DCRG, from the Bank account of the petitioner, after remittance of the benefit to the account of the petitioner. 3.2. It is contended that since petitioner while getting the benefit of the pay scale after validation of his appointment vide Notification dated 15.02.2003 and retired with the pay scale while getting such benefit on 31.05.2013, without following the principles of natural justice and without issuing any show-cause, no recovery could have been effected with reduction of the pension by Opp. Party No.5 from the pension and DCRG of the petitioner and that too from the bank account of the petitioner. 3.3. It is contended that since petitioner got the benefit of the pay scale after validation of his appointment and such pay scale was also revised, till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2013, no such step could have been taken to revise the pension with the recovery from the pension and gratuity benefit and the same is not permissible in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vrs. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909, disposed of on 08.08.2024. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-26 and 27 has held as follows:- “26. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna also seem to have fallen in the same error. In addition thereto, we are of the view that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences. Thus, no such action could have been taken against the appellant, more particularly, because he had been promoted as an ADSO, while drawing the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 applicable to the post, way back on 10th March, 1991 and had also superannuated eight years ago before the recovery notice dated 15th April, 2009 was issued. The impugned action directing reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 27. The order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the State Government directing reduction in the pay scale of the appellant fromRs.6500-10500toRs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and directing recovery of the excess amount from him is grossly illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed. Therefore, the appellant shall continue to receive - the pension in accordance with the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.” 3.4. It is also contended that by following the decision in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh so cited (supra), this Court in its order dated 05.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No.6293 of 2021, quashed similar nature of order with recovery. This Court in Para-7 of the said order has held as follows:- “7. In the case at hand, since the Petitioner has admittedly retired from service with effect from 31.01.2020, the subsequent order of the Authority under Annexure-7 to reduce his pay by way of further revision is hereby quashed.” 3.5. It is accordingly contended that in view of the nature of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh, so followed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6293 of 2021, reduction of the pension with the recovery, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned action, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that after his retirement from service, pension of the petitioner was calculated taking into account his entire service period as qualifying service which includes the stipendiary service period for the period from 01.02.1991 to 01.01.1999 as qualifying service. 4.1. Though it is not disputed that after such retirement of the petitioner, petitioner was sanctioned with pension and other pensionary benefits, but when Accountant General-Opp. Party No.3 raised objection with regard to taking the stipendiary service period as qualifying service for the period 01.02.1991 to 01.01.1999, the authority concerned came to a conclusion that stipendiary service period could not have been treated as qualifying service for the purpose of sanction of pension and pensionary benefits. 4.2. Accordingly, while reducing the qualifying service, pension of the petitioner was revised and on such revision of the pension, petitioner was held liable to refund a sum of Rs.2,65,075/- and the same has been recovered from the pension and gratuity of the petitioner by debiting his bank account. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Opp. Parties in revising the pension with the recovery as made. 5. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.3 also made similar submission as made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel contending inter alia that since stipendiary service period has been taken as qualifying service, the same when was objected by the Opp. Party No.3, pension of the petitioner was revised. On such revision of the pension, petitioner was found liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,65,075/- and the same has been recovered from the account of the petitioner as by the said time, the benefit had already been credited to the petitioner’s account. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner to the submission of the learned State Counsel and learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.3, made further submission contending inter alia that in similar issue learned Tribunal vide order dated 27.08.2018 in O.A. No.1360 of 2017, held the stipendiary service period as qualifying service. Per contra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1360 of 2017, is the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.6541 of 2022 and the appeal is pending before the Apex Court. 6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that, since petitioner without any notice has been saddled with such revision of pension with the recovery as made, in view of the decision in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh so cited (supra) so followed in W.P.(C) No.6293 of 2021, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner on his retirement, his entire service period was taken as qualifying service and accordingly his pension and other pensionary benefits were assessed and released. However, basing on the objection raised by Opp. Party No.3, Stipendiary Engineer period of the petitioner for the period 01.02.1991 to 01.01.1999 was not treated as qualifying service. Accordingly, petitioner’s pension was revised with recovery of the amount in question. 7.1. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh so cited (supra) and followed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6293 of 2021, this Court is of the view that since stipendiary service period was treated as qualifying service with sanction of the pension and other pensionary benefits after retirement of the petitioner, no such revision in pension with consequential recovery could not have been made and that too without following the principle of natural justice. 7.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the recovery so made from the pension and gratuity of the petitioner following the decision in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh. This Court directs the Opp. Parties to release the amount so recovered from the petitioner with release of the pre-revised pension in favour of the petitioner along with all the arrears. However, such extension of benefit will be subject to final outcome of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6541 of 2022. Opp. Parties are directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th January, 2026/Basudev