Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Niwas Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1711/2021
Ram Niwas Sharma S/o Shri Badri Lal Sharma, Aged About 61
Years, R/o D-38, Kriti Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Women And Child
Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Deputy Director (Administration), Integrated Child
Development Services, Rajasthan , Jaipur.
3. Child Development And Project Officer, Integrated Child
Development Services, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Shrimali
Mr. Harish Jangid.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
11/07/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
direction to the respondents for release of the post retiral benefits.
It is inter-alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner
has retired on 30.11.2020. However, respondents on account of
having issued orders for recovery against the petitioner on
account of alleged ground of excess payment, have not processed
the case of the petitioner for payment of the retiral benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the
order passed by the respondents seeking to recover a sum of
Rs.91,507/- has already been quashed by the Rajasthan Civil
Services Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 20.05.2022 relying
(2 of 3) [CW-1711/2021]
on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab v. Rafiq Masih: 2015 (1) SCC 195 and therefore, as
nothing remains outstanding against the petitioner, the
respondents be directed to make the payment of the retiral
benefits in accordance with law.
Further submissions have been made that though this Court
passed interim order dated 10.03.2021 directing the respondents
to process the petitioner's case for provisional pension and
provision gratuity, nothing has been done, forcing the petitioner to
file contempt petition.
Based on which, now the respondents have issued a
communication dated 22.06.2022 to the Pension Department for
releasing the provisional pension etc. to the petitioner, which order
for issuance of provisional pension also is now not justified, in
view of the fact that recovery already stands quashed.
Learned AAG made submissions that the recovery was
sought to be made from the petitioner on account of wrong grant
of ACP to the petitioner, as he was not entitled to grant of second
ACP w.e.f. 2005 on account of his having fathered 3 rd child and,
therefore, the order for recovery was made. However, submissions
have been made that the fact that the order of recovery has been
quashed by the Tribunal is not within his knowledge and as the
same has been quashed, the consequences in accordance with law
would follow.
In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the retiral
benefits of the petitioner have not been paid on account of
recovery ordered by the respondents, which order now stands
quashed by the Competent Tribunal on 20.05.2022, there
(3 of 3) [CW-1711/2021]
apparently is no reason for the respondents not to issue/pay the
requisites to the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, the petition filed by the petitioner
is disposed of. The respondents are directed to accord all the
terminal benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law within a
period of one month from today.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
26-pradeep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
