IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No. 1303 of 2025 (An Appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948, read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule-6 of Chapter-III of the Rules of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, 1948 challenging the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28160 of 2020)

State of Odisha and Anr. …. Appellants Mr. Saroj Kumar Jee, A.G.A.

-versus-

Akshaya Kumar Barik & …. Respondents others Mr. Atul Tripathy, Advocate CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 19.01.2026 Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28160 of 2020, whereby the order of the District Audit Officer, Local Fund Audit, Balasore, directing refixation of pay of the writ petitioner after retirement, was quashed and consequential directions were issued for restoration/reimbursement of any reduction effected in pensionary benefits. The Appellants–State have assailed the said judgment contending, inter alia, that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the statutory scheme governing regularisation, pay fixation and applicability of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, and that the relief granted travels beyond the permissible limits of judicial review.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel appearing for Respondents and have carefully perused the materials available on record.

3. The delay of 175 days is condoned in I.A. No.2626 of

2025.

4. The undisputed factual matrix is that the Respondent entered service as Work Sarkar in 1980 and was promoted on ad hoc/officiating basis to the post of Junior Assistant in 1985 against an admitted vacancy. He continued to discharge duties of the promotional post uninterruptedly for nearly three decades. His service was ultimately regularised in 2014 with a stipulation that the ad hoc period would count for pensionary benefits but without financial benefit for the said period. He retired in 2017. The controversy arose much after his superannuation, when the pension proposal was scrutinised and the District Audit Officer issued instructions in 2020 for refixation of pay with retrospective effect, resulting in reduction of pay and consequential impact on pensionary benefits, without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing.

5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and the settled legal position, quashed the impugned audit instructions, primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and impermissibility of unilateral post-retiral interference with settled pay and pensionary benefits. The direction issued was confined to restoration or reimbursement, if any recovery or reduction had already been effected.

6. Mr. Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that under the ORSP Rules, 2008 and 2017, the Respondent was not entitled to revised scales for the ad hoc period; that the regularisation order of 2014 clearly barred financial benefits prior thereto; and that the Single Judge erred in applying the line of authorities relating to recovery from retired employees.

7. At the outset, it is evident that the action impugned before the writ court was not a mere arithmetical correction but a substantive refixation of pay with civil consequences, undertaken after retirement. Such an exercise, even if traceable to statutory rules, could not have been undertaken without complying with the minimum requirement of audi alteram partem. The absence of any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing vitiates the decision-making process itself. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in holding the impugned action to be procedurally unsustainable.

Secondly, while it is true that the regularisation order restricted financial benefits