Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 13 October, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3502/2017
Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Haziwas, Tehsil
Raipur, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary,
Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer Elementary Education, Pali.
4. The Block Elementary Education, Raipur, Pali.
5. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Chouhan for
Mr. K.K. Bissa, AGC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
13/10/2022
The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for
quashing of the order dated 02.02.2017 whereby recovery of an
amount of Rs.1,66,746/- was sought to be made from the
petitioner on the premise that the wrong fixation was made and
an excess amount had been paid to him.
Vide interim order dated 12.09.2016, the respondents were
directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner however
they were held entitled to withhold a sum of Rs.1,66,746/-.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is
squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
(2 of 3) [CW-3502/2017]
Court in 2015(4) SCC 334; State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) & Ors. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:
"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-IV 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."
A bare perusal of the ratio as laid down in Rafiq Masih's
case makes it clear that the petitioner being Teacher Grade III
specifically falls within categories No. (i) & (ii) as mentioned above
and therefore, no recovery from him can be said to be permissible
in law.
In view of the same, the present writ petition is allowed,
order dated 02.02.2017 is quashed and the respondents are
directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,66,746/- to the petitioner,
(3 of 3) [CW-3502/2017]
if withheld, within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of the copy of the present order.
(REKHA BORANA),J
29-Dharmendra/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
