Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Nidra Khamari – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayer for quashing and directives for pension benefits. (Para 3) |
| 2. contention on leave regularization and pension sanction. (Para 4) |
| 3. counter-arguments on employment status and pension payments. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's decision on regularization of leave and pension. (Para 6) |
| 5. writ petition disposed. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-
“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue “Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus quashing the order. dtd. 25.11.2020 as at Annexure-19 and further directing the opp. Party No.1 to take 2 final decision on the letter dtd. 181.2000 of opp. party No.2 as at Annexure-2 for condonation of break in service and . accordingly extend the pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period _ stipulated by this Hon‘ble Court
II. To quash the decision of opp. party no.3 dtd. 9.3.2015 as at ~ Annexure-14 for recovery of amount
Recovery of overpaid pension is permissible despite challenges if prior adjustments remain unaddressed and entitlement errors confirmed.
The court ruled that withholding pension without ongoing proceedings violates legal rights, emphasizing no recovery from retired employees without fraud or misconduct.
The court emphasized that recovery of excess payments from Group-D employees is impermissible, and actions taken without due process violate principles of natural justice.
The court held that employees regularized despite not formally joining are still entitled to pensionary benefits, emphasizing fairness in public employment rights.
The court affirmed that no vested rights arise from erroneous retrospective regularization, and recovery from Class-IV employees for excess payments is impermissible under the law.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible unless circumstances warranting such recovery exist, as reinforced by Supreme Court precedents.
No disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, withholding of retirement benefits under the guise of the impugned Memo is unjust, arbitrary.
Employee claims for pension must be considered in light of prior judicial rulings on regularization, asserting rights after prolonged service without due process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
