Reinforcing natural justice and procedural fairness — a critical analysis of Jogeswar Sahoo & ORS. vs the District Judge, Cuttack & ORS.
The case is between Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. VS The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. embodying a critical question of law, i.e., whether recovery of the amount extended to the Employee while they were in service is justified after their retirement and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing.
The facts of the case were that Jogeswar Sahoo and others, who worked as Stenographer Grade-I and Personal Assistants in the District Judiciary, Cuttack, were granted financial benefits in 2017 based on retrospective promotions from 01.04.2003, following the Shetty Commission’s recommendations. After retiring in 2020, the authorities, in 2023, ordered recovery of the financial benefits, claiming that the benefits were granted due to an incorrect interpretation of the recommendations. The recovery orders were passed without giving the appellants a chance to be heard. Their writ petition challenging the recovery was dismissed by the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the financial benefits given to the Appellants (Stenographers) in 2017 were not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation on their part. The payments were later disapproved by the High Court, leading to a recovery order in 2023 — after the appellants had already retired in 2020. Consequently, the recovery order was passed without giving the appellants an opportunity for a hearing. Since the appellants were non-gazetted, retired ministerial staff, the Court held that the recovery of such amounts was unsustainable, following its earlier principles on recovery from retired employees.
The significance of this decision lies in upholding the principles of natural justice while balancing administrative accountability. The case of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. vs The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. raises a crucial question of law. The Supreme Court’s ruling comes as a relief for retired employees and reinforces the need for procedural fairness in administrative decisions. It reflects the judiciary’s commitment to protecting employees from arbitrary recovery actions, particularly when benefits were neither obtained through fraud nor misrepresentation. As recovery proceedings involving retired personnel continue to arise, this judgment calls for introspection within public administration on aligning efficiency with fairness, ensuring that lawful entitlements are not defeated by technicalities or retrospective corrections.