Kashinath Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kashinath Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to opposite party no.5 to conduct a post decisional hearing after giving the petitioner an opportunity of representation, within eight weeks; whether the recovered amount is handed back depends on that enquiry; all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition survives for consideration at all, given that the disputes regarding refixation of pay and recovery have already been settled by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. +1 more

Court's answer

While noting that principles of natural justice are sacrosanct and that, per the Apex Court in Menka Gandhi v Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), Courts may in their discretion afford a post decisional hearing in appropriate cases, the petition is disposed of directing opposite party no.5 to conduct a post decisional hearing in the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity of representation, to be completed within eight (8) weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The Court is broadly in agreement with learned AGA that the petition is 'nothing but a shadow boxing', the disputes having already been settled by the Tribunal and by affirmation of the Tribunal's order by the Division Bench.

Key takeaways

Whether the amount recovered should be handed back to the petitioner would depend upon the enquiry (post decisional hearing); all contentions of the parties are kept open.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.), W.P.(C) No.10971 of 2024, order dated 09.10.2025 — Petitioner prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.1.2024 passed by the D.E.O., Kandhamal (Annexure-8), whereby an excess amount (paid following pay refixation allegedly for want of a particular qualification) was recovered from him after retirement, allegedly without notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged, relying on State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (AIR 1976 SC 667) and State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry (AIR 1973 SC 834), that no recovery could be made from gratuity/pension post-retirement, much less sans notice. The Court, agreeing broadly with learned AGA that the disputes had already been settled by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal and affirmed by the Division Bench (a 'shadow boxing'), nevertheless held principles of natural justice sacrosanct; invoking Menka Gandhi v Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) on post decisional hearing, it disposed of the petition directing opposite party no.5 to conduct a post decisional hearing after affording the petitioner an opportunity of representation, within eight (8) weeks; whether the recovered amount should be handed back would depend upon that enquiry; all contentions kept open.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.10971 of 2024

…. Petitioner

Kashinath Mahapatra

Mr. Gopal Charan Mohanty, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opp. Parties Mr.U.C. Behura, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

09.10.2025

Order No. 05

Petitioner has scripted his prayer as under:-

“Under the above circumstances and for ends of Justice it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may pleased to admit this Writ petition and after hearing pass an order to quash the order dated 16.1.2024 passed by the D.E.O. Kandhamal which is placed under Annexure-8”

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that post retirement, no amount could be recovered from the gratuity/pension of the petitioner, much less sans notice. In support of this, he cites decisions of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh ; AIR 1976 SC 667 & State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry ; AIR 1973 SC 834.

Learned AGA Mr.Behura, drawing attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, more particularly the order dated 16.01.2024 at Annexure-8,

Page 1 of 1

submits that petitioner was given additional amount, which he was not entitled to because of his lacking a particular qualification; the pay of the petitioner was refixed eventually resulting into recovery of certain amount from him, which was paid in excess; he had laid a challenge to the same before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which denied relief to him; he also took the matter in challenge before the Division Bench of this court and it met the same fate. Mr.Behura submits that the public money cannot be retained by a public servant especially when his challenge to re-fixation of pay has been negatived and as a corollary of that, recovery has been done. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of Mr.Behura, learned AGA that this petition is nothing but a shadow boxing, essentially disputes having already been settled by the Tribunal and by affirmation by the Division Bench of Tribunal’s order.

The above being said, there is a normative process for recovery from the gratuity or pension once the public servant retires. Counsel for the petitioner repeatedly raised a question as to why no opportunity of hearing was given to his client before effecting the recovery. Principles of

Page 2 of 3

natural justice are sacrosanct and the Apex Court in Menka Gandhi v Union of India; AIR 1978 SC 597, has held that Court in their discretion may afford post decisional hearing in appropriate cases.

In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off directing the opposite party no.5 to conduct a post decisional hearing in the matter after giving an opportunity of representation to the petitioner. This is to be accomplished within a period of eight (8) weeks. Whether the amount recovered should be handed back to the petitioner would depend upon the enquiry. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.

( Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

Basu

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 10-Oct-2025 11:01:09

Page 3 of 3