Government cannot retrospectively reduce an employee’s pay or recover excess payments without due process, especially post-retirement.

Judgment :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order of the District Audit Officer, seeking its quashing by this Court, as it is alleged to have a detrimental impact on his pension entitlements and retirement benefits.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:

(i) The petitioner, a retired Junior Assistant from Jaleswar Municipality in Balasore wherein he initially served as a Work Sarkar from 01.08.1980, to 30.04.1985. He was then appointed as a Junior Assistant on an ad-hoc basis starting 01.05.1985.

(ii) On 27.12.2014/ the petitioner’s appointment was regularized by the Housing and Urban Development (H&UD) Department, and he was assigned the pay scale applicable to Junior Assistants, set at Rs. 5,200 - Rs. 20,200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900.

(iii) However, an order from the District Audit Officer, dated 07.09.2020, instructed the Executive Officer of Jaleswar Municipality to re-fix the petitioner’s pay at Rs.5/420/- with a Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-, with effect from 01.01.2016.

(iv) The petitioner contends that, since his regularization was effective from 27.12.2014, he is entitled to benefits under the 2017 ORSP (Odisha Revised Scale of Pay) Rule from January 1, 2016, onward.

(v) However, as per the opposite parties, his ad-hoc service prior to December 27, 2014, does make him ineligible for the 2017 ORSP Rule benefits and is only counted for pensionary benefits without any financial increment for the ad-hoc period.

(vi) The petitioner’s pay scale was previously fixed by Jaleswar Municipality at Rs. 11,770/- with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-, which was considered erroneous by the District Audit Officer. This incorrect pay fixation placed a substantial financial burden on the government, and the error was flagged during an audit, leading to the instruction for re- fixation.

(vii) Aggrieved by the order of the District Audit Officer, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a directive from this court to quash the order, as he believes it adversely affects his retirement benefits and pension rights.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner has submitted that the letters issued on 14.02.2020 and 07.09.2020 are invalid since they were issued years after the petitioner’s retirement (2 years and 10 months for the first, 3 years and 5 months for the second). Such retrospective revisions hugely impact his pensionary benefits and is unlawful.

(ii) He further submitted that the petitioner’s ad-hoc services were regularized on 27.12.2014 with the stipulation that the ad-hoc period would be counted towards pensionary benefits.

(iii) The petitioner contended that even if the pay fixation was erroneous, the respondents were obligated to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner, granting him an opportunity to be heard.

(iv) He further contended that the decisions contained in the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal, and have been taken without due process.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It is submitted that the petitioner’s pay fixation can only be applied based on his regularization dated (27.12.2014). Thus, the ORSP Rule 2008 or prior versions do not apply to the petitioner’s ad-hoc service, as he was not in a regular position before 2014.

(ii) He further submitted that the petitioner i