Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banshi Nath vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2370/2018
Banshi Nath S/o Shri Mangi Nath, Resident Of Village Nimbeda
Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Director, Department
Of Elementary Education, Bikaner.
2. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Pali.
3. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Raipur, District
Pali.
4. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Ratdiya,
Panchayat Samiti, Raipur, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
14/03/2022
The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the
order dated 01.07.2017 whereby the petitioner was directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.1,27,012/- qua the benefit of increment given
to him with effect from 01.07.2009. The case of the petitioner is
that he was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III
vide order dated 07.04.2003. In terms of the notification dated
06.04.2013, the petitioner was granted the benefit of Annual
Grade Increment w.e.f. 01.07.2009 but vide order dated
01.07.2017, the petitioner was directed to deposit back the
amount qua the said benefit granted to him on the premise that
he was not eligible for the same.
(2 of 3) [CW-2370/2018]
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the ratio as laid
down by the Hon'ble Court Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors.
Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in 2015(4)
SCC 334; the judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Gopal Mal Bhandari vs. Rajasthan High
Court & Anr (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7031/2019) and the
order dated 19.01.2022 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13033/2015 (Mangu Singh vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran
Nigam & Ors.). In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court laid down the following principles:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of
hardship which would govern employees on the issue
of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been
made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement.
Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to
herein above, we may, as a ready reference,
summarise the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible
in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class-
III and Class- V service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D'
service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or
employees who are due to retire within one year, of
the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in excess of five
years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance
of the employer's right to recover."
It is clear on record that the present controversy is also
governed by the principles laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih
(3 of 3) [CW-2370/2018]
(supra) and learned counsel for the respondents is not in a
position to refute the same.
It is clear that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and
therefore, specifically falls within the categories as mentioned in
the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and so no recovery from him
can be said to be permissible in law.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed, the
impugned orders dated 16.02.2017 and 01.07.2017 are quashed
and set aside.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
Ashutosh-70
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
