State of Odisha Vs Akshaya Kumar Barik

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No. 1303 of 2025

(An Appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948, read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule-6 of Chapter-III of the Rules of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, 1948 challenging the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28160 of 2020)

¶3

State of Odisha and Anr.

¶4

…. Appellants

¶5

Mr. Saroj Kumar Jee, A.G.A.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Akshaya Kumar Barik & Respondents others

¶8

Mr. Atul Tripathy, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶11

Date of Judgment: 19.01.2026

¶12

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

¶13

This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28160 of 2020, whereby the order of the District Audit Officer, Local Fund Audit, Balasore, directing refixation of pay

¶14

W.A. No.1303 of 2025

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

of the writ petitioner after retirement, was quashed and consequential directions were issued for restoration/reimbursement of any reduction effected in pensionary benefits. The Appellants–State have assailed the said judgment contending, inter alia, that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the statutory scheme governing regularisation, pay fixation and applicability of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, and that the relief granted travels beyond the permissible limits of judicial review.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel appearing for Respondents and have carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶18

The delay of 175 days is condoned in I.A. No.2626 of 2025.

¶19

The undisputed factual matrix is that the Respondent entered service as Work Sarkar in 1980 and was promoted on ad hoc/officiating basis to the post of Junior Assistant in 1985 against an admitted vacancy. He continued to discharge duties of the promotional post uninterruptedly for nearly three decades. His service was ultimately regularised in 2014 with a stipulation that the ad hoc period would count for pensionary benefits but without financial benefit for the said period. He retired in 2017. The controversy arose much after his

¶20

W.A. No.1303 of 2025

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

superannuation, when the pension proposal was scrutinised and the District Audit Officer issued instructions in 2020 for refixation of pay with retrospective effect, resulting in reduction of pay and consequential impact on pensionary benefits, without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing.

¶23

The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and the settled legal position, quashed the impugned audit instructions, primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and impermissibility of unilateral post-retiral interference with settled pay and pensionary benefits. The direction issued was confined to restoration or reimbursement, if any recovery or reduction had already been effected.

¶24

Mr. Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that under the ORSP Rules, 2008 and 2017, the Respondent was not entitled to revised scales for the ad hoc period; that the regularisation order of 2014 clearly barred financial benefits prior thereto; and that the Single Judge erred in applying the line of authorities relating to recovery from retired employees.

¶25

At the outset, it is evident that the action impugned before the writ court was not a mere arithmetical correction

¶26

W.A. No.1303 of 2025

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

but a substantive refixation of pay with civil consequences, undertaken after retirement. Such an exercise, even if traceable to statutory rules, could not have been undertaken without complying with the minimum requirement of audi alteram partem. The absence of any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing vitiates the decision-making process itself. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in holding the impugned action to be procedurally unsustainable.

¶29

Secondly, while it is true that the regularisation order restricted financial benefits for the ad hoc period, the Respondent’s pay had been continuously fixed, revised and audited over the years under successive ORSP Rules by the competent audit authority itself. The State permitted this position to attain finality not only during service but also up to the stage of retirement. The attempt to reopen and unsettle the same after several years, particularly post superannuation, cannot be viewed as a routine correction. In service jurisprudence, such belated interference is frowned upon, especially where the employee is not at fault and has merely received what was sanctioned by the employer and audit authorities themselves.

¶30

The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on decisions such as Syed Abdul Qadir , Rafiq Masih and allied

¶31

W.A. No.1303 of 2025

¶32

Page 4 of 7

¶33

precedents cannot be said to be misplaced. Even assuming that no actual recovery had yet been effected, the direction for refixation itself, if implemented, would inevitably lead to recovery or reduction of pension.

¶34

In the matter of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc ., (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶35

"7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this Court exempted employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice in any cause" would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court. ×××

¶36

In view of the afore-stated constitutional mandate, equity and good conscience, in the matter of livelihood of the people of this country, has to be the basis of all governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that

¶37

W.A. No.1303 of 2025

¶38

Page 5 of 7

¶39

the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. Orders passed in given situations repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose the parameters of the realm of an action of recovery (of an excess amount paid to an employee) which would breach the obligations of the State, to citizens of this country, and render the action arbitrary, and therefore violative of the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

¶40

It is also significant to note that the learned Single Judge did not grant any positive declaration of entitlement contrary to the statutory rules, nor did the Court direct grant of financial benefits for the ad hoc period as a matter of right. The relief granted is narrowly tailored to setting aside a procedurally flawed and inequitable post-retiral action and to restoring the position as it stood prior thereto. The writ court was well within its jurisdiction to interdict such action at the threshold, having regard to the settled law that recovery from retired employees, in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud, causes undue hardship and is impermissible in equity.

¶41

In the totality of circumstances, this Court finds no perversity, legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the

¶42

W.A. No.1303 of 2025

¶43

Page 6 of 7

¶44

judgment dated 29.10.2024 warranting interference in writ appellate jurisdiction.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is affirmed.

¶46

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶47

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶48

A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

W.A. No.1303 of 2025

¶51

Page 7 of 7

¶52

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior StenographerReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 22-Jan-2026 13:21:44

State of Odisha v. Akshaya Kumar Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Akshaya Kumar Barik

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

State of Odisha Vs Sanatana Sahoo

Union of India Vs Ajit Kumar Khuntia

Nirupama Malik Vs State of Orissa

Premchand Chhatai Vs M/S Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Ltd., Berhampur

The Zonal Manager, Uco Bank, Zonal Office, Balasore Vs Pabitra Jena

Canara Bank,Bangaluru Vs the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khorda