BAIKUNTHANATH PATTANAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition came by way of Original Application through the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.313 of 2017 but on abolition of the Tribunal, the matter being directed by this Court has been transferred to this Court and registered as WPC(OA) No.313 of 2017. Filing the Original Application, the Petitioner, Applicant therein, sought for the following relief :-

(2.) Background involving the case is that the Applicant, Petitioner herein entered into service on 15/1/1975 completing his journey as a Service Holder. On attaining the age of superannuation, the Petitioner appears to have been superannuated in the afternoon of 31/7/2013. It appears, the Petitioner was only sanctioned with provisional pension plus T.I. as admissible, which is continuing as on date. The Petitioner while approaching the Authority for releasing of his retiral dues including G.P.F. and Gratuity etc. and also regularizing the final pension involving him, got surprise to receive a letter dtd. 27/9/2016, vide Annexure-3 much after his superannuation thereby asking the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.57,534.00 pending recovery against the Petitioner during his service period. Annexure-3 discloses the details of recovery. Challenging such action of the Competent Authority and objecting to Annexure-3, on 26/10/2016 the Petitioner submitted a protest disowning the claim of recovery made against him, vide Annexure-4. Pleading further disclosed that in consideration of the protest of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-4, while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner in the rejection letter dtd. 28/1/2017, vide Annexure-5, the Department reiterated its claim, vide Annexure-3. It is on the basis of work report and certificate involving the recovery aspect, the Petitioner claimed, there has been satisfactory report and certificate of completion not suggesting any recovery.

(3.) Sri S.N.Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner in filing the Petition in challenge to the order at Annexure-3 vis-a-vis Annexure-5 contended that there is no dispute that the amount sought to be recovered belongs to the recovery period, 2012 and the Petitioner attained his superannuation in July, 2013. It is contended that admittedly there was no proceeding or any dispute involved in participation of the Petitioner on the recovery aspect, Sri Patnaik further contended that the provision in the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short, "the 1992 Rules") presently applies to the case of the Petitioner for his superannuation already taken place, there is even no possibility of involving the issue in any Disciplinary Proceeding any further. Taking this court to the provision at the 1992 Rules, particularly, referring to the provision at Rule-7 therein, Sri Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner attempted to demonstrate his case of no question of getting into such recovery and thus claimed that not only the order at Annexure-3 becomes bad for being contrary to the provision of the 1992 Rules applies to the Parties concerned, there also appears, there is mechanical disposal of the objection of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-5 also remaining contrary to the provision contained in the 1992 Rules.