Usharani Jena Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶15

By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief.

¶16

<In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the letters dtd, 14.09.2024, 15.07.2025 and 18.10.2025 under Annexure-1, 4 & 6 respectively after declaring those as illegal.

¶17

And further be graciously pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the opposite Parties to refund the deducted amount with admissible interest within a stipulated period of time.

¶18

Page 1 of 5.

¶19

And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper.

¶20

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall remain ever pray.=

¶21

The factual backgrounds of the Petitioner’s case leading to filing the present writ application is that the Petitioner initially joined as Lecturer in Odia at Tihidi College on 26.05.1995. While working as such the Petitioner was extended with the benefit of Block Grant/GIA with effect from 01.01.2014. Thereafter, with effect from 01.01.2022 the Petitioner was allowed 100% GIA and his salary was disbursed in the month of December, 2022.

¶22

While this was the position, the Opposite Party No.5 informed the Petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.83,544/- towards audit recovery on 14.09.2024. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought for certain documents in connection with recovery sought to be made from him. Again on 03.05.2025 the Opposite Party No.5 informed for recovery of the aforesaid amount. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 05.05.2025. Since no action was taken on his reply, the Petitioner has compelled to approach the Opposite party by filing a representation for refund of a sum of Rs.15,000/- which has been deducted from his salary for month of September, 2025. In reply to the aforesaid representation, Opposite Party No.5 took a stand that such recovery has been made pursuant to the direction of the Opposite Party No.4. Thereafter the Petitioner again submitted another representation

¶23

Page 2 of 5.

¶24

on 22.10.2025 to the Principal-in-charge-cum- Secretary of Tihidi College challenging the deduction of Rs.15,000/- towards audit recovery from the salary of the Petitioner for the month of September, 2025. He further contended that although such representation has been filed before the Opposite Party No.5 however, no final decision has been taken on the same. Being aggrieved by the inaction of Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶25

In course of his argument learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the letter of the Department of Higher Education, Government of Odisha dated 05.11.2022 and stated before this Court that a clear instruction has been circulated among all principles of the Non-Government Aided Colleges with regard to recovery of such amount by the management for payment of Grant-in-Aid/Block Grant including arrears to the employees after the same is sanctioned by the Government. The letter further reveals that there is no specific provision under the GIA Orders for such recovery and any such instruction in that regard issued on behalf of the Government does not have approval of the Government. Hence, it has been directed to treat such direction for recovery as a nullity in the eye of law. Relying upon the aforesaid letter dated 05.11.2022, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the recovery of the amount from the salary of the Petitioner on the basis of the audit report is highly illegal and arbitrary and, accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed for quashing of such order

¶26

Page 3 of 5.

¶27

passed by the Opposite Party No.5.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter however, taking into consideration the nature of the grievance involved in the writ application and the fact that the Petitioner has not approached the competent authority in the Government for redressal of his grievance, it was submitted that the present writ application is premature. Hence, the same should not be entertained. He further contended that in the event liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3, the competent authority for redressal of his grievance by filing the representation and the Director of Higher Secondary Education is directed to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same.

¶29

Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within three weeks’ from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules within a period of eight weeks’ by passing a

¶30

Page 4 of 5.

¶31

speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. It is further directed that no further coercive action shall be taken against the present Petitioner till disposal of his representation in the manner as has been directed hereinabove or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶32

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶34

Judge

¶35

Sisir

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Mar-2026 18:52:50

¶38

Page 5 of 5.

Usharani Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usharani Jena 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muralidhar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Kishore Kedia Vs Harsh Vardhan Tibrewal

Dr. Kumarmani Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Rajkishore Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Manjushree Dash Vs State of Odisha

Kalpataru Jena Vs State of Odisha