IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30297 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Ramakanta Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Adv. For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. N. Nayak, Adv. for Corporation PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 06.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 06.03.2026 Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.07.11.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order benefit of increment sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. the year 2000, was directed to be recovered from the retirement benefit of the Petitioner, after he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2023 as per order under Annexure-4. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih so followed in the case of Thomos Daniel and further order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo, contended that since the benefit was extended in the year 2000 and Petitioner enjoyed the said benefit till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2023, no such recovery can be made from the Petitioner after his retirement basing on the impugned order under Annexure-5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 18 of the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih and in Para- 18 of the judgment in the case of Thomas Daniel has held as follows. xxx xxx xxx “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. But 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 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. “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 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.” 4.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. following the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih & Thomos Daniel in Para-13 has held as follows. “ xxx xxx xxx 13. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 4 wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus: “8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover”. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order under Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. N. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party -Corporation on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the counter affidavit so filed. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner though was regularized initially from the year 2000 and was released with the increment, but the said order was subsequently withdrawn and Petitioner was formally appointed vide order dtd.30.01.2004 under Annexure-A/5. But taking into account the earlier order of the regularization issued on 13.07.2000, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of increment and he enjoyed the said benefit till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2023. After his retirement when it came to the knowledge of the Corporation that Petitioner has been wrongly extended with the benefit of increment from the year 2000 in place of 2004, letter under Annexure-5 was issued with a direction to recover the excess payment. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since because of the wrong committed by the Corporation, Petitioner got the benefit of increment which he was not otherwise entitled to get from the year 2000, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 5.3. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. vs. State of Uttarkhand and Ors. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-16 has held as follows:- “16. So far as the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is coming under the fold of Para-12 (iv), which pertains to recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duty of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post, the fact of the instant case is not like that of the said ground since the petitioner has never been allowed to work in the higher post rather it is only the re designation of the post in which he was working and as such condition under 12 (iv) is not applicable.” 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service under the Corporation, benefit of increment was allowed after he was regularly appointed vide order dtd.13.07.2000. Even though such an order was recalled and a fresh order was passed on 30.01.2004, but benefit of increment so allowed w.e.f. from the year 2000, was never withdrawn till the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2023. 6.1. After his retirement on 31.08.2023, the order under Annexure-5 has been issued recalling the benefits of increment so allowed in his favour from the year 2000 consequential recovery of the excess payment. 6.2. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih, Thomos Daniel & Jogeswar Sahoo so cited (supra), this Court is of the view that no such recovery can be made from a retired employee, after enjoying the benefit for around 24 years. The decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation as per the considered view of this Court on the face of the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih & Thomos Daniel is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dtd.07.11.2024 so issued by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-5 and while quashing the order allow the Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 6th March, 2026/Subrat