Rajesh Gupta vs R S E B And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:5234)
2024 Latest Caselaw 712 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Rajesh Gupta vs R S E B And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:5234) on 31 January, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:5234]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 736/2000

Rajesh Gupta son of Shri B. D. Gupta, Aged 34 years, Resident
of Sobhag Clud, Civil Lines, Ajmer
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur through its Chairman and Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Controller of Stores, RRVPNL, Beawar, District
Ajmer.
3. The Accounts Officer (TCC III), RRVPNL, Sobhag Club, Civil
Lines, Ajmer.
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sunil Samdaria
For Respondent(s)            :     Dr. Saugath Roy



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                        Order

31/01/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not

pressing the prayer relating to pay fixation, and is confining the

scope of the present petition to prevent the respondents from

effecting the illegal recovery of Rs. 6,042 from the petitioner. In

support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has

relied upon Apex Court judgment of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of

Kerala & Ors.: AIR 2022 SC 2153, wherein it was held that if

excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation

or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by

the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay

or on basis of particular interpretation of rules/order which is

[2024:RJ-JP:5234] (2 of 2) [CW-736/2000]

subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of

emoluments or allowance are not recoverable.

2. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed

the prayer so made, he could not controvert the fact that there

was no fraud of misrepresentation on part of the petitioner.

3. Heard and considered.

4. Considered that a meager sum of about Rs. 6,042 is involved

in the present petition, which was also allowed to the petitioner by

the respondent on their own accord without any fraud or

misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, in light of Apex

Court judgment of Thomas Daniel (supra), this Court directs

the respondent to not recover the same from the petitioner.

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending

application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)