IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26204 of 2025 Sri Srikanta Patra …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Dash, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD Order No. 01. ORDER 23.09.2025 Petitioner has scripted his prayer as under: “It is therefore prayed that your Lordships’ be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule nisi in the nature of appropriate writ or any other writ(s) as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the prayer made hereunder shall not be allowed, and if no- insufficient cause is shown, the said rule be made absolute by issuing writ(s) in the nature of: The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned part of the order dt.12.09.2024 at Annexure-8 to the extent of recovery of the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner in the interest of justice. AND Further be pleased to direct that the excess amount recovered from the petitioner as per the order at Annexure-8 to the tune of Rs.1,68,966/- be refunded/reimbursed with interest to petitioner at an early date in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits and learned AGA- Mr. Jee appearing for the OPs does not much dispute that the subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.(C) No.36053 of 2023 between Moti Dei v. State of Odisha disposed off by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2025. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 4.1. Admittedly, Petitioner has put in a long and spotless service of twenty-seven years and peaceably retired from service on 30.06.2023. Her earlier litigations, wherein she has sought for regularization of service, did not bear any fruit, whatever be the reasons therefor, and now they have attained finality. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in submitting that in the light of subsequent declaration of law in Jaggo v. Union of India, (2024) INSC 1034, her client could have been regularized in service. This aspect also needs to be kept in view, since Petitioner was unceremoniously sent home without granting the status, which she would have acquired on regularization. The State & its instrumentalities should conduct themselves as Model Employer vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right again in telling that recovery of the kind could not have been made without giving an opportunity of hearing to her client. The principles of natural justice are treated even by the Apex Court as sacrosanct, in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No explanation is being offered as to why no notice was issued to the Petitioner before effecting recovery. No fraud is also alleged against the Petitioner. Things have been done in such a manner, which, even the East India Company of the bygone era, would not have ventured. 4.3. Petitioner, a Peon, admittedly, was in the Class-IV category. In the hard days like these, when bread is costlier than blood, recovery from the salary/emoluments that too in respect of any event that happened years ago, would not auger well to the rules of reason & justice. Compassion in the case of low rung employees is not anathema to the Constitution. This needs to be kept in mind by the officials, while dealing with employees of the lower rungs of public service, especially when they are in the evening of their lives post retirement. That is the inner voice of Apex Court decision in Jogeswar Sahoo v. The District Judge: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 396. In the above circumstances, writ petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of recovery coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to refund to the Petitioner entire money recovered from her, within a period of three months, sans any interest. However, delay shall carry interest at the rate of 1% per mensem payable to the Petitioner and the interest component may be recovered from the erring officials of the department.” In the above circumstances, Writ Petition is also allowed, a Writ of Mandamus issues to OPs to refund or cause to be refunded all the amount recovered from the Petitioner within a period of three months with no interest. However, if delay is caused, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 1% per mensem, which may be recovered from the erring officials. Now, no costs. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge Madhusmita Designation: Asst-Register-cum-Senior Secretary