Moti Dei Vs State of Odisha

“ The Revised Grade Pay from October 20212 to October 2017 and the salary from November 2017 to January 2022 in revised scale of pay Rules 2017 was paid to you by the DDO of this School which was beyond the rules as per letter No.8420 dated 28.04.2021 of District Education Officer, Cuttack.

¶20

According to your undertaking dated 07.10.2017 in Fifth Schedule the excess salary drawn in our favour will be recovered from the salary bill of February 2022 onwards.

¶21

This is for your information.”

¶22

Learned counsel-Ms. Anjana Mishra appearing for the Petitioner

¶23

vehemently submits that her client is a Class-IV employee and therefore, at this length of time no recovery could be made from her salary/pension/emoluments. Counsel further submits that her client was unfortunate, inasmuch as despite such a long and spotless service, she

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

could not secure regularization, her legal battles eventually having failed, and therefore, justice of the case warrants that no recovery should be effected. She points out that the impugned recovery is violative of principles of natural justice, since no opportunity of hearing was given to her client. She also presses into service State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, AIR 2015 SC 696.

¶26

Learned AGA-Mr. Jee appearing for the OPs vehemently opposes the petition drawing attention of the Court to the earlier rounds of litigation, namely, W.P.(C) No.39394 of 2021 disposed off on 20.09.2022 followed by Writ Appeal No.1362 of 2022 disposed off on 29.08.2023. Further, he submits that the question of granting opportunity of hearing would not arise, inasmuch as even if one was given, it would not have changed the outcome. He also tells the Court that the ruling is not applicable to the case, since it involved retired employee.

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused

¶29

the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶30

4.1. Admittedly, Petitioner has put in a long and spotless service of twenty-seven years and peaceably retired from service on 30.06.2023. Her earlier litigations, wherein she has sought for regularization of service, did not bear any fruit, whatever be the reasons therefor, and now they have attained finality. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in submitting that in the light of subsequent declaration of law in Jaggo v. Union of India , (2024) INSC 1034, her client could have been regularized in service. This aspect also needs to be kept in view, since Petitioner was unceremoniously sent home without granting the status, which she would have acquired on regularization. The State & its instrumentalities should conduct themselves as Model Employer vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam , AIR 2013 SC 234.

¶31

4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right again in telling that

¶32

recovery of the kind could not have been made without giving an

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

opportunity of hearing to her client. The principles of natural justice are treated even by the Apex Court as sacrosanct, in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No explanation is being offered as to why no notice was issued to the Petitioner before effecting recovery. No fraud is also alleged against the Petitioner. Things have been done in such a manner, which, even the East India Company of the bygone era, would not have ventured.

¶35

4.3. Petitioner, a Peon, admittedly, was in the Class-IV category. In the hard days like these, when bread is costlier than blood, recovery from the salary/emoluments that too in respect of any event that happened years ago, would not auger well to the rules of reason & justice. Compassion in the case of low rung employees is not anathema to the Constitution. This needs to be kept in mind by the officials, while dealing with employees of the lower rungs of public service, especially when they are in the evening of their lives post retirement. That is the inner voice of Apex Court decision in Jogeswar Sahoo v. The District Judge: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 396.

¶36

Page 5 of 6

¶37

In the above circumstances, writ petition is allowed; a Writ of

¶38

Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of recovery coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to refund to the Petitioner entire money recovered from her, within a period of three months, sans any interest. However, delay shall carry interest at the rate of 1% per mensem payable to the Petitioner and the interest component may be recovered from the erring officials of the department.

¶39

Now, no costs.

¶40

Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶41

Dixit Krishna Shripad,

¶42

Judge

¶43

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 20^th day of September, 2025/Madhusmita

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Asst-Register-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 20-Sep-2025 17:22:05

¶46

Page 6 of 6

Moti Dei v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Dei v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailabala Nayak Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bbsr

Kampabhai Vocational Training Institute, Chandrasekhar Nagar, Balangir Vs State of Odisha

Ananta Kumar Dalapati Vs State of Odisha

Pratibha Prusty Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Kumar Nanda Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Balimela Hydro Electric Project Vs Chair Person,Up State Micro and Small Enterprises