PRITILATA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired as a Headmistress, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 10/1/2012 passed by opposite party no.3 under Annexure-6, and consequential order dtd. 12/3/2014 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 910 (C) of 2012 under Annexure-7, and to issue direction to the authority not to recover the so called excess payment made to her.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner had joined in a Matric C.T. post in L.S.E.S. cadre on 16/8/1978 and was appointed in a trained graduate post w.e.f. 1981. Thereafter, she was promoted to the Jr. S.E.S. cadre (Women Branch) on regular basis, vide order dtd. 17/8/1989, by the C.I. of Schools, Puri. On promotion to Jr. S.E.S. cadre, she was posted at Dandamukundapur High School, Puri against the vacancy of the year 1981, but she actually joined on 17/8/1989. The name of the petitioner was shown at sl.no.937 of the provisional gradation list for Jr. S.E.S. teacher published on 17/5/1999 by the opposite party no.2. In the said gradation list, the date of joining in Jr. S.E.S. cadre was shown to be 1/12/1981.

(3.) Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the petitioner had been given the benefit from the date she had got promotion w.e.f. 1/12/1981 and accordingly TBA scale of pay was also allowed to her and as a consequence thereof her scale of pay was fixed and salary was paid to her. But, after long lapse of more than 10 years, when the order in Annexure-6 was passed directing to recover the amount from her, the petitioner approached the tribunal. But, the tribunal, without taking into consideration the factual matrix in proper perspective, confirmed the order of recovery passed by the authority, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. More so, the said order runs contrary to the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014, arising out of SLP (C) No. 11684 of 2012, disposed of on 18/12/2014, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the apex Court held that recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, would be impermissible in law. Thus, it is contended that the benefit which has already been extended to the petitioner should not have been recovered. As such, the tribunal has committed gross error in passing the order impugned and accordingly he seeks interference of this Court.