LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/jogeswar-sahoo-ors-vs-the-district-judge-cuttack-ors-20250404/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. vs The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
4 April 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 4989 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 13 : 2025 INSC 449
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 5 S.C.R. 13 : 2025 INSC 449
Issue for consideration
Whether recovery of the amount extended to stenographer Grade-I and Personal Assistant, while they were in service, justified after their retirement and without affording any opportunity of hearing.
Headnote

Service law – Retrospective promotion/appointment – Grant of financial benefit – Recovery of excess drawn arrears after superannuation of the employees, if permissible – Appellantsstenographer Grade-I granted certain financial benefit on grant of promotion/appointment retrospectively upon upgradation – Appellants superannuated from their posts and three years thereafter, the respondent no.1 ordered recovery of said amount and directed the appellants to deposit the excess drawn arrears, without affording any opportunity of hearing – Writ petition by appellants, dismissed by the High Court – Sustainability:

Held: If the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation/fraud by employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable – Such relief is not because of any right of the employee but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employee from the hardship that would be caused if the recovery is ordered – On facts, payment made to the appellants was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them – It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, the same was subsequently not approved by High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery – Recovery was directed six years after the payment was made, and three years after the appellants retired, and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing – Appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post – Thus, the recovery order is unsustainable, and is set aside. [Paras 9, 11, 12]

Keywords: Superannuation · Financial benefit on retrospective promotion/ appointment · Shetty Commission · Erroneous interpretation of rule/ order · Wrong principle for calculating pay/allowance · Stenographer Grade-I and Personal Assistant · Retirement · Opportunity of hearing · Grant of financial benefit · Recovery of excess drawn arrears after superannuation of the employees · Upgradation of Stenographers · Misrepresentation/fraud by employee · Excess payments of emoluments or allowances · Judicial discretion

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP (C) No. 33482 of 2023 whereunder the High Cout dismissed the appellants’ writ petition in which a challenge was made to the orders dated 12.09.2023 and 08.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court, Cuttack and Registrar, Civil Courts, Cuttack, as the case may be, directing recovery of Rs 26,034/-, Rs.40713/-, Rs. 26539/-, Rs. 24683/- and Rs. 21,485/-. 3. At the relevant time, the appellants were worki
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →