IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30297 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

………………

Ramakanta Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Adv.

For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. N. Nayak, Adv. for Corporation PRESENT:

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 06.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 06.03.2026 Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.07.11.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order benefit of increment sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. the year 2000, was directed to be recovered from the retirement benefit of the Petitioner, after he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2023 as per order under Annexure-4.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih so followed in the case of Thomos Daniel and further order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo, contended that since the benefit was extended in the year 2000 and Petitioner enjoyed the said benefit till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2023, no such recovery can be made from the Petitioner after his retirement basing on the impugned order under Annexure-5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 18 of the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih and in Para- 18 of the judgment in the case of Thomas Daniel has held as follows.

xxx xxx xxx “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. But that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v)