The central legal point established is that recovery orders and disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the 1992 Rules cannot be initiated against a retired employee beyond four years of the incident, and any illegal withholding of entitlements of a retired employee is undesirable.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Petition came by way of Original Application through the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.313 of 2017 but on abolition of the Tribunal, the matter being directed by this Court has been transferred to this Court and registered as WPC(OA) No.313 of 2017. Filing the Original Application, the Petitioner, Applicant therein, sought for the following relief :-

'i. To quash the order of recovery dated 27.9.2016 as at Annexure-3 and rejection of representation dated 20.1.2017 as at Annexure-5.

ii. To direct the respondents to release the final pension and pensionary benefits like gratuity, commuted value of pension etc. with effect from 1.8.2014 within a period to be stipulated by hon'ble Tribunal along with admissible interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of such amount. iii. To grant the applicant all consequential services.'

2. Background involving the case is that the Applicant, Petitioner herein entered into service on 15.1.1975 completing his journey as a Service Holder. On attaining the age of superannuation, the Petitioner appears to have been superannuated in the afternoon of 31.7.2013. It appears, the Petitioner was only sanctioned with provisional pension plus T.I. as admissible, which is continuing as on date. The Petitioner while approaching the Authority for releasing of his retiral dues including G.P.F. and Gratuity etc. and also regularizing the final pension involving him, got surprise to receive a letter dated 27.9.2016, vide Annexure-3 much after his superannuation thereby asking the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.57,534/- pending recovery against the Petitioner during his service period. Annexure-3 discloses the details of recovery. Challenging such action of the Competent Authority and objecting to Annexure-3, on 26.10.2016 the Petitioner submitted a protest disowning the claim of recovery made against him, vide Annexure-4. Pleading further disclosed that in consideration of the protest of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-4, while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner in the rejection letter dated 28.1.2017, vide Annexure-5, the Department reiterated its claim, vide Annexure-3. It is on the basis of work report and certificate involving the recovery aspect, the Petitioner claimed, there has been satisfactory report and certificate of completion not suggesting any recovery.

3. Sri S.N.Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner in filing the Petition in challenge to the order at Annexure-3 vis-a-vis Annexure-5 contended that there is no dispute that the amount sought to be recovered belongs to the recovery period, 2012 and the Petitioner attained his superannuation in July, 2013. It is contended that admittedly there was no proceeding or any dispute involved in participation of the Petitioner on the recovery aspect, Sri Patnaik further contended that the provision in the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short, 'the 1992 Rules') presently applies to the case of the Petitioner for his superannuation already taken place, there is even no possibility of involving the issue in any Disciplinary Proceeding any further. Taking this court to the provision at the 1992 Rules, particularly, referring to the provision at Rule-7 therein, Sri Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner attempted to demonstrate his case of no question of getting into such recovery and thus claimed that not only the order at Annexure-3 becomes bad for being contrary to the provision of the 1992 Rules applies to the Parties concerned, there also appears, there is mechanical disposal of the objection of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-5 also remaining contrary to the provision contained in the 1992 Rules.

4. In his opposition, Sri S.Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department on reiteration of the plea of O.P.6 submitted that undisputedly, the Petitioner was entrusted to execute two numbers of work mainly major repair work for the financial year 2010-2011 with estimated cost o