Rajasthan High Court
Kajod Mal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12507/2018
Kajod Mal Son Of Shri Ghasi Lal Jangid, Residnet Of Behind
Badaya Dharmshala, Lad Ka Kua, Ward No. 20, Lalsot, District
Dausa Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Divisional Commissioner,
Jaipur Rajasthan
2. District Collector, District Dausa Raj.
3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa Raj.
4. Dy. Collector, Sub Division Lalsot, District Dausa Raj.
5. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Deparrtment
Rajasthan Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10528/2018
Kajod Mal Son Of Shri Ghasi Lal Jangid, Residnet Of Behind
Badaya Dharmshala, Lad Ka Kua, Ward No. 20, Lalsot, District
Dausa Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Divisional Commissioner,
Jaipur Rajasthan
2. District Collector, District Dausa Raj.
3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa Raj.
4. Dy. Collector, Sub Division Lalsot, District Dausa Raj.
5. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Deparrtment,
Rajasthan Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Jangid, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC
Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment / Order
(2 of 5) [CW-12507/2018]
Reserved on 03/03/2022
Pronounced on 14/03/2022
1. The moot issue involved in both the above writ petitions is
pertaining to non-release of pension despite the petitioner having
superannuated on 31/07/2017 and further for quashing and
setting aside the order impugned dated 29/05/2018 by which
recovery to the tune of Rs.3,56,995/- has been ordered to be
made from pension of the petitioner. Thus, both these writ
petitions are being decided by this common order.
2. As per the petitioner, he joined services of the respondent-
department on 01/02/1979. He was made semi-permanent on
01/04/1982 and then permanent on 01/02/1989. He was
thereafter promoted on 01/04/1994 and was granted I and II
Selection Scales on 16/04/1994 and 01/04/2000 respectively. He
was superannuated as Driver on 31/07/2017.
3. It is contended that when his pensionery benefits were not
released even after lapse of 9 months of superannuation, he filed
above writ petition numbering 10528/2018 wherein notices were
issued and soon thereafter vide order impugned dated
29/05/2018, recovery was ordered to be made to the tune of
Rs.3,56,995/- from his pension stating that on re-fixation of pay,
it was found that during the period from 01/04/2000 to
31/12/2016, excess salary to the tune of Rs.3,56,995/- was
released to the petitioner and being aggrieved of the same, he
filed the second writ petition numbering 12507/2018.
4. The first and foremost argument raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an uneducated person
and the respondents themselves have fixed the pay of the
petitioner and released him the due amount. There was no
(3 of 5) [CW-12507/2018]
mistake on the part of the petitioner and whatever was released
for the said period, he withdrew the same qua his salary and
benefits. Pursuant to circulars issued from time to time and
circular dated 24/03/2011, the work charge employees were
regularized upon rendering 10 years of service and no excess
payment had been released to the petitioner and the recovery
order dated 29/05/2018 is bad on facts as well as law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide
circular dated 20/04/2017, it is directed by the Secretary
(Finance), Govt. of Raj. in Para 3 that any over payment cannot be
continued to be recovered for an indefinite period and specially in
the case of persons who are on the verge of retirement, no
recovery should be initiated. Learned counsel placed reliance upon
judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) & Ors.: (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein it
has been observed that recovery in such matters is impermissible
as the same caused hardship after lapse of a considerable period
of time.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the recovery in the instant matter was justified as excess
claim of Rs.3,56,995/- had been released to the petitioner for
which he was not entitled.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length, perused
record of the writ petition and considered the judgment cited at
bar.
8. At the outset, on considering the judgment of the Apex Court
in State of Punjab & Ors. (supra), it goes to show that the
Apex Court has held that the recovery of amount paid in excess
towards salary without fault of recipient is impermissible specially
(4 of 5) [CW-12507/2018]
when the same was not on account of mistake committed by the
employee and when the excess amount was not towards fraud or
misrepresentation as well as when the recovery is from employees
belonging to Class III & IV and from retired employees or
employees are due to retire or where recovery from employees to
whom excess payment has been made for a period in excess of
five years before the order of recovery is issued etc.
9. In the light of the directions given by the Apex Court in
State of Punjab & Ors.(supra) which are squarely applicable in
the instant case, this Court is in agreement with the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery
proceedings initiated qua the petitioner were barred by delay and
latches and are impermissible specially when Circular dated
20/04/2017 has been issued by the Secretary (Finance) of the
Govt. of Rajasthan relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
State of Punjab & Ors.(supra) and giving direction to the
Administrative Departments concerned that no recovery can be
made for indefinite time from the retired employees.
10. Even otherwise, on merits, the contention of the petitioner is
justified that he was initially appointed in service on 01/02/1979
as a Class IV employee and was made semi-permanent,
permanent and then was granted promotion and benefit of
selection grade and re-fixation on 01/04/2000 as per rules and the
circulars of the department. The petitioner has an unblemished
track record and no fault is there on his part. He was granted the
benefits which were due to him from the year 2000 to 2016 which
were duly audited from time to time by the competent authorities.
11. In the light of above reasoning, this Court is of the view that
the writ petitions need to be allowed and the impugned recovery
(5 of 5) [CW-12507/2018]
order dated 29/05/2018 needs to be quashed & set aside. The due
amount of pension, if still withheld, is also liable to released with
consequential benefits in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned recovery order dated 29/05/2018 is hereby quashed &
set aside and the respondents are directed to release pension of
the petitioner, if still withheld, with consequential benefits in
accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of in
above terms.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Raghu/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
