Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganga Singh And Ors vs State And Ors on 23 November, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5823/2003
1. Ganga Singh s/o Shri Narpat Singh Khichi, aged 42 years, r/o
House No.182, Narpat Nagar, Main Pal Road, JODHPUR (Raj.)
2. Jas Raj s/o Shri Bhagu Ram Dholiya, aged 33 years, r/o
Gramothan Vidhyapeeth Sansthan, near TV tower, NAGAUR,
(Raj.)
3. Bhoor Singh s/o shri Behru Singh Rathore, aged 44 years, r/o
Quarter No.3, panchayat Samiti Avas, Osiyan , District-
JODHPUR (Raj.)
4. Ram Chandra s/o Shri Jodha Ram Vishnoi, aged 34 years, r/o
Panchayat Samiti Quarter no.4, Panchayat Samiti- Mandore
Headquarter, JODHPUR (Raj.)
5. Baldeo Ram s/o Shri Shiv Lal Dholiya, aged 44 years, r/o D-
10, Gandhi Nagar, Merta District- NAGAUR (Raj.)
6. Ganpat Singh s/o Shri Abhay Singh Khichi, aged 39 years, r/o
village & post- Kuseep Tehsil- siwana, district- BARMER (Raj.)
7. Kesha Ram s/o Shri Jala Ram, aged 42 years, r/o Mahaveer
Nagar, Opposite Adarsh School. Teh- Chotan, District-BARMER
(Raj.)
8. Surendra Khambu s/o Shri Jeev Raj, aged 38 years, r/o
village & post - Mithrau Tehsil- Chohtan, District- BARMER (Raj.)
9. Om Prakash s/o Shri Harjeevan Joshi, aged 36 years, r/o
Joshiyon Ka Uparla Bas, BARMER (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajsthan, Through the Director & Special
Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, JAIPUR (Raj.)
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, JAIPUR (Raj.)
(2 of 5) [CW-5823/2003]
3. The Rajasthan Siksha Karmi Board, C-86, Prithvi Raj Marg, C-
Scheme, JAIPUR (Raj.) through its Secretary
4. The Deputy Director (Siksha Karmi), Siksha Karmi Board
Regional Office, JODHPUR (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Rajendra Kataria
For Respondent(s) : Mr K.K.Bissa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
23/11/2021
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging
the action of the respondents of effecting recovery from salary of
the petitioners vide impugned orders Annexures - P/8, P/9, P/10,
P/13 and P/14 for the period from 01.07.1998 to 03.08.2000.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were
working as Teacher Grade-III under the Punchayati Raj
Department as confirmed employees. Pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') , the petitioners applied
for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Sahyogi on
deputation. In the advertisement it was provided that upon
deputation, the incumbents shall be granted pay scale higher than
the pay scale in which they have been receiving salary in their
parent department. The petitioners were selected and they joined
on deputation on the post of Shiksha Karmi Sahayogi under the
Board. It is to be noticed that apart from higher salary, the
petitioners were also entitled for deputation allowance, which was
paid to them regularly.
(3 of 5) [CW-5823/2003]
Suddenly on 24.09.2000, the Assistant Accounts Officer
of the Audit Department passed an Order/Memo directing to
recover alleged excess amount paid to them from the salary of the
petitioners. The period of recovery was shown from 01.07.1998 to
03.08.2000. Thereafter on 31.10.2000, the Convener of the Board
was directed to effect recovery from the salary of the petitioners
mentioning that they were not entitled to receive salary in the
next higher pay scale than parent department. The Board issued
another order on 02.12.2000 directing to effect recovery of
alleged amount paid to the petitioners from their salary, however,
the Board vide order dated 08.01.2002 stayed the recovery till
further orders.
On 16.03.2002 Rule 29 of the Shiksha Karmi Board
(Personnel and Service) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as
'the Rules of 1994') was amended and earlier Rule 29 was deleted
and it was substituted that any person, who joined as Shiksha
Karmi Sahyogi on deputation, is only entitled for deputation
allowance. In the said order, it is clearly mentioned that the said
amendment will come into effect from the date of its issuance.
Thereafter on 19.09.2002, an order was issued by the
Board stating that salary, which was paid to the petitioners after
including deputation allowance of Rs.150/- in the next higher pay
scale during the period 01.07.1998 to 31.08.2000 is liable to be
recovered because the deputation allowance cannot be included in
the pay of the petitioners and they are also not entitled for receipt
of salary in the next higher pay scale.
Being aggrieved with the said action of the
respondents, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
(4 of 5) [CW-5823/2003]
It is averred in the petition that the salary in the higher
pay scale was paid to the petitioners in accordance with the orders
(Annexures-P/1 to P/6) passed by the respondents. It is also
averred that in the order dated 16.02.2002, whereby Rule 29 of
the Rules of 1994 was amended, it is clearly mentioned that the
said amendment is prospective in nature and, therefore, the
recovery cannot be effected from the petitioners by applying the
amendment with retrospective effect. It is also averred in the writ
petition that the petitioners did not make any misrepresentation
on their part and the salary in the higher pay scale was given to
them pursuant to the orders passed by the respondents and,
therefore, also the action of recovery of alleged excess amount
from the salary of the petitioners is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the
respondents, wherein it is mentioned that as per amended Rule
29, the petitioners were not entitled for salary in the higher pay
scale while working as Shiksha Karmi Sahyogi on deputation and
as such there is no illegality in effecting recovery of the excess
amount from the salary of the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused
the material available on record.
It is not disputed by the respondents in their reply that
in the advertisement, issued by the respondent No.3 for inviting
applications for Teacher Gr.III for appointment of Shiksha Karmi
Sahyogi on deputation, it is mentioned that the incumbents
selected for appointment on deputation are entitled to get salary
in the next higher pay scale than the pay scale in which they have
been receiving salary in their parent department. It is not the case
of the respondents that the petitioners have misrepresented and
(5 of 5) [CW-5823/2003]
on account of that the salary was paid to them in the next higher
pay scale.
It is also not disputed by the respondents in their reply
that Rule 29 of the Rules of 1994 was amended in the year 2002
and was made effective from the date of issuance of the order
dated 16.03.2002.
It is noticed that all the petitioners must have attained
the age of superannuation till this date.
Taking into consideration the above facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the action of
the respondents of effecting recovery from the salary of
petitioners was not justified.
Hence, the instant writ petition is allowed. The
impugned recovery orders Annexures - P/8, P/9, P/10, P/13 and
P/14 are hereby set aside.
No order as to costs.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
4-masif/-PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
