Abhaya Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

2. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead DFO, Cuttack Division, Cuttack as O.P. No.5 in Court.

¶11

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

4. Pursuant to order dated 16.09.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the department. The same be kept in record.

¶13

5. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

“It, is there fore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing . the Opp. Parties more particularly Opp. Party No.1 & 3 to restore the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- as 3^rd RACP w.e.f. 11.03.2013 with interest and to pay the statutory interest on the delayed payment of DCRG.

¶16

And to direct the said Opp. Parties to restore the RACP as prayed for within a stipulated time.”

¶17

6. It is contended that while petitioner was continuing in service, vide office order dated 28.11.2017 under Annexure-5, he was sanctioned with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- in the shape of 3^rd RACP and the said benefit was extended w.e.f. 11.03.2013.

¶18

6. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while in receipt of such Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- per month, petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.04.2018. After such retirement from service, when pension papers were submitted for sanction of pension by taking the Grade Pay at Rs.6600/- and the same was objected by the Accountant General-Opp. Party no.3, without issuing any show-cause and giving any opportunity of hearing, the Grade Pay so sanctioned at Rs.6600/- per month vide order dated 28.11.2017 under Annexure-5, was reduced to Rs.5400/-.

¶19

6. 2. Not only that by reducing the Grade Pay to Rs.5400/-, pension papers were submitted and pension was sanctioned by making a recovery of Rs.2,80,518/from the retirement gratuity of the petitioner. It is contended that since petitioner on being found eligible

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

was sanctioned with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- per month w.e.f. 11.03.2013 vide order dated 28.11.2017 under Annexure-5 and the said benefit continued till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2018, basing on the objection if any, made by the Opp. Party No.3- Accountant General, the Grade Pay could not have been reduced to Rs.5400/- with recovery of Rs.2,80,518/- from the retirement gratuity of the petitioner and by fixing the pension accordingly.

¶23

6. 3. It is accordingly contended that since prior to reducing the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- with revision of the pension papers and recovery of Rs.2,80,518/- from the retirement gratuity of the petitioner, principle of natural justice was never followed, such action of the department is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶24

7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned reduction of the Grade Pay to Rs.5400/per month and consequential recovery from the retirement gratuity, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that subsequent to sanction of Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- per month vide order dated 28.11.2017 under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No.3 when objected to such sanction while dealing with the pension papers of the petitioner. Opp. Party No.4 having come to a conclusion that Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- has been wrongly extended in favour of the petitioner, reduced the same to Rs.5400/- per month

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

and submit the pension paper accordingly. Because of such reduction of the Grade Pay to Rs.5400/- from Rs.6600/-, petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,80,518/- from the retirement gratuity.

¶28

7. 1. Basing on the report so submitted by the Opp. Party No.4, pension was sanctioned by taking Grade Pay at Rs.5400/- and Rs.2,80,518/- was recovered from the retirement gratuity of the petitioner.

¶29

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while in service as a Forest Ranger, vide order dated 28.11.2017 under Annexure-5, was sanctioned with grade pay of Rs.6600/- per month and it was made effective w.e.f. 11.03.2013. It is not disputed that petitioner while in receipt of such benefit, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2018.

¶30

8. 1. However, it is found that pension papers submitted by the O.P. No.4 when was objected by the Opp. Party No.3 inter alia with regard to sanction of Grade Pay at Rs.6600/- per month in favour of the petitioner, O.P. No.4 reduced the Grade Pay to Rs.5400/- per month and submitted the pension papers accordingly.

¶31

8. 2. While submitting the pension papers by taking the Grade Pay at Rs.5400/- per month, petitioner was held

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

// 5 //

¶34

liable to refund the excess payment to the tune of Rs.2,80,518/-.

¶35

8. 3. Since prior to taking such step to reduce the Grade Pay to Rs.5400/- per month with recovery of Rs.2,80,518/-, petitioner admittedly was never given an opportunity of hearing with issuance of any showcause, this Court is of the view that no such action could have been taken by Opp. Party No.4.

¶36

8. 4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, directs Opp. Party No.4 to take a fresh decision with regard to the objection made by the Opp. Party No.3 regarding entitlement of the petitioner to continue with the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/so sanctioned vide order dated 28.11.2017, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶37

8. 4. Opp. Party No.4 is directed to decide the issue within a period of 3 (three) months hence. Petitioner is permitted to file his objection with regard to his entitlement to continue with the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/. Basing on such decision to be taken as directed, if it is held that petitioner is entitled to continue with the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-, pension papers be revised and the recovery amount be refunded to the petitioner. O.P. No.4 is directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

// 6 //

¶40

9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶41

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶42

Basudev

¶43

Signature Not Verified