Ajeet Kumar Jaiman S/O Shri Om ... vs The Registrar General
2022 Latest Caselaw 1594 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6135/2019

1.      Ajeet Kumar Jaiman S/o Shri Om Prakash Jaiman, Aged
        About 59 Years, Resident Of 57 Surya Nagar, Jaipur.
2.      Hari Krishan Mudgal S/o Shri Late Shri Radhey Shyam
        Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 11 A, Mohan
        Colony, Sodala, Jaipur.
3.      Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Gulab Chand Sharma,
        Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 7-A, Radha Nikunj,
        Iscon Temple Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.      The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2.      The Registrar (Administration), Rajasthan High Court,
        Jodhpur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Jaiman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, through VC

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment

17/02/2022 Petitioners are retired employees of the Rajasthan High

Court. They are challenging impugned orders dated 26.02.2019

and 06.03.2019 passed by the High Court Administration whereby

and whereunder pay fixation of petitioners has been changed and

consequently certain recoveries have been ordered, which would

affect their pension.

Facts of the case are that the petitioners while placed on the

post of Court Master from the post of Stamp Reporter were denied

the benefit of third ACP treating the same post as a promotion.

(2 of 2) [CW-6135/2019]

This issue was agitated and the writ petition No.10493/2011 was

decided in favour of Court Master granting the benefit of third ACP.

As such petitioners were granted pay fixation as a promotion and

benefit of third ACP. The matter was considered by respondents

benefit of pay fixation as promotion was revised consequently

impugned orders were passed requiring recoveries from

petitioners at the verge of the retirement.

The similar issue raising demand of recoveries from such

Court Masters was considered and decided at Principal Seat of this

court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.7031/2019, Gopal Mal Bhandari

Vs. The Registrar Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and other

connected matters on 29.11.2021, and relying on the judgment of

the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334] allowed the writ petitions and

directed not to make any recovery of over payment of salary from

the petitioners.

Counsel for both the parties do not dispute that controversy

of the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid

judgment dated 29.11.2021 in case of Gopal Mal Bhandari

(supra).

In view of above, instant writ petition stands disposed of and

orders of recovery from petitioners are set aside. If any recovery

has been made from either of the petitioners, the same be

refunded to them with immediate effect.

                                   (SUDESH BANSAL),J                                                  (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   SAURABH/180









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)