JOGESWAR SAHOO & ORS. versus THE DISTRICT JUDGE, CUTTACK & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 03-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 13 : 2025 INSC 449
Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors.  
v. 
The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4989 of 2025)
04 April 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and  
Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
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.
Headnotes†
Service law – Retrospective promotion/appointment – Grant 
of financial benefit – Recovery of excess drawn arrears after 
superannuation of the employees, if permissible – Appellants- 
stenographer 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 
* Author
14
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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]
Case Law Cited
Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022) SCC online SC 
536 – relied on.
Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1994] Supp. 3 SCR 674 : (1995) 
Supp. 1 SCC 18; Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [1994] 1 
SCR 700 : (1994) 2 SCC 521; Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [1996] 
Supp. 2 SCR 358 : (1996) 4 SCC 416; V. Gangaram v. Regional 
Jt. Director [1997] 3 SCR 1043 : (1997) 6 SCC 139 – referred to.
List of 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; Ministerial post of 
Stenographer not gazetted post.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4989 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2023 of the High Court 
of Orissa at Cuttack in WP (C) No. 33482 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Kedar Nath Tripathy, Aditya Narayan Tripathy, S. Debabrata Reddy.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Joby P. Varghese, Shahid Akhtar, Shovan Mishra, Ms. Bipasa Tripathy.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
15
Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. 
The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.