Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash Agrawal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/005531]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10821/2018
Om Prakash Agrawal S/o Dhruv Lal Agrawal, Aged About 67
Years, Resident of 2-B, 64-65, Saket Nagar, Housing Board,
Beawar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar, AGC for
Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
16/02/2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 23.01.2014 and 08.03.2018 vide which, certain amount is
sought to be recovered for erroneous fixation of the petitioner in
the Pay Scale.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
impugned has been passed by the respondents after seven years
of superannuation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the petitioner has never
misrepresented any fact before the respondents. He also submits
that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely
covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
[2023/RJJD/005531] (2 of 3) [CW-10821/2018]
of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
& Ors, reported in 2015(4) SCC 334. He, therefore, prays that
the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the recovery orders
dated 23.01.2014 and 08.03.2018 may be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the factual as well as the legal aspect of the matter
canvased by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab &
Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) has 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."
In view of the undisputed facts of the present case and the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) coupled with the
[2023/RJJD/005531] (3 of 3) [CW-10821/2018]
fact that the petitioner was superannuated in the year 2011 and
an order for re-fixation/wrong fixation was passed by the
respondents on 23.01.2014 without giving any reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the present writ petition is
allowed and the order dated 23.01.2014 and 08.03.2018 are
quashed and set aside.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
124-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
