Geeta vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5206 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017109]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10992/2018

Geeta W/o Shri Methu Ram Mulchandani, Aged About 61 Years, C/o Shramik Colony, Masuriya, Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Department Of Elementary Education, Bikaner.

2. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki For Respondent(s) : Ms. Bhawna Jangid

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

24/05/2023

1. The instant writ petition lays challenge to the order dated

04.01.2018 (Annexure-4), whereby the respondents have

recovered the benefit of Selection Grade already granted to the

petitioner on the ground that the same was wrongly given.

2. Apprising the Court about the relevant facts, Mr. Solanki,

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of the

order dated 16.11.2011, ACP was sanctioned to the petitioner,

however, finding the same to be erroneous, by way of order dated

28.07.2017, the respondents corrected the same and re-fixed the

petitioner's salary.

3. Thereafter, by way of order dated 04.01.2018, a sum of

Rs.45,251/- has been recovered from the petitioner's Gratuity

Payment Order, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

[2023/RJJD/017109] (2 of 2) [CW-10992/2018]

4. Mr. Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner was working at lower rung with the respondent no.4

on the post of Helper and the benefit of Selection Grade / ACP was

accorded by the respondents as per their own decision, in which

neither the petitioner had any role nor had she misrepresented in

any manner. Therefore, the recovery having been made by the

respondents is illegal and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq

Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents could not satisfy the

Court as to how the petitioner can be asked to make good the

excess payment on account of erroneous fixation of her salary.

6. Hence, while keeping the order of re-fixation intact, recovery

of the amount already paid to the petitioner is declared illegal, in

the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rafiq Masih (supra).

7. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of

Rs.45,251/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from

today.

8. In case, the amount is not refunded, the same shall carry

interest @ 6% per annum from the date it was deducted.

9. The writ petition stands allowed, as indicated hereinabove.

10. The stay application also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 54-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)