Gouranga Chandra Chanda Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director, Osrtc, Bbsr

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. A.P.Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application and documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The present writ application has been filed with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund and release an amount of Rs.2,14,791/- (Rupees Two lakhs fourteen thousand seven hundred ninety one), which has been recovered from the Petitioner by the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 on shortfall income for the targeted income from the dues of the Petitioner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,14,791/-

¶18

(Rupees Two lakhs fourteen thousand seven hundred ninety one) has been illegally recovered from the dues of the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount which has been recovered by the OSRTC. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to a judgment of this Court in OJC No.8491 of 1999 in the matter of Laxmidhara Patra v. Chairman-cum-M.D., OSRTC & Ors. as well as the case of Deepak Kumar Sahoo v. OSRTC in W.P.(C) No.1424 of 2002 . A similar view has also been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court of Bhaskar Ch. Garnaik v. The Chairmancum-Managing Director, OSRTC & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.25725 of 2024 disposed of on 03.01.2025. He further contended that while disposing of the W.P.(C) No.25725 of 2024, the learned Coordinate Bench has relied upon the aforesaid impugned judgments and has eventually set aside the impugned order of recovery and has further directed to refund the amount which has been illegally recovered from the Petitioner along with an interest @ 6% within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of that order. He further contended that the present Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the aforesaid persons in whose case this Court had already passed orders thereby directing the refund of the sum which has been illegally recovered. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties-

¶19

Page 2 of 4.

¶20

Corporation be directed to refund the amount that has been illegally recovered from the present Petitioner.

¶21

Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-OSRTC, on the other contended that as a result of such departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner, the aforesaid amount has been realized from the present Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality and that the order directing recovery of the aforesaid amount is well within their authority and in accordance with law. On such grounds, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-Corporate submitted that the present writ application is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further keeping in view the judgments in the case of Laxmidhara Patra (supra) and Deepak Kumar Sahoo (supra) as well as Bhaskar Ch. Garnaik (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner which has been submitted before the Opposite Party in the shape of the representation dated 18.12.2024 under Annexure-2, in accordance with law and in terms of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and, dispose of the

¶23

Page 3 of 4.

¶24

representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is placed on an identical footing to the above noted persons, then the benefits which have been extended to the aforesaid persons be also extended of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within ten weeks from the date of filing of the application. Any decision taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be intimated to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within ten days of the date of taking of the decision.

¶25