State Of Rajasthan vs Rajneesh Kumar Patel ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 17315 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Rajneesh Kumar Patel ... on 19 December, 2025

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:55195-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 656/2025

1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
         Department         Of      Elementary          Education,        Government
         Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
         Department,        Government            Of     Rajasthan,       Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
3.       The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4.       Joint      Director        (Personnel),        Elementary         Education,
         Rajasthan, Bikaner.
5.       The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara
         (Rajasthan).
6.       The District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Elementary
         Education, Banswara (Rajasthan).
7.       District     Education         Officer        (Secondary         Education),
         Banswara (Rajasthan).
                                                                       ----Appellants
                                        Versus
1.       Rajneesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Patel,
         Aged       About      41     Years,      R/o      Village     Kanela,   Post
         Chandrawara           Tehsil       Anandpuri          District     Banswara
         (Rajasthan).
2.       Naresh Kumar Bhagora S/o Shri Khaturam Bhagora, Aged
         About 48 Years, Resident Of V/p Naharpura, Tehsil
         Anandpuri, District Banswara.
3.       Dali Chand Sasar S/o Shri Kanheya Lal Masar, Aged About
         41 Years, Resident Of Village Kanela, Post Chandrawara,
         Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)               :    Ms. Meenal Singhvi (through VC), for
                                    Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG.
                                    Mr. Deepak Chandak, for
                                    Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG.
For Respondent(s)              :    -------




                         (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:05:13 PM)
                        (Downloaded on 22/12/2025 at 09:09:08 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:55195-DB]                   (2 of 3)                    [SAW-656/2025]


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

19/12/2025

1. The matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act seeking delay in filing the appeal.

2. Having considered the application and the reasons stated

therein, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is

hereby condoned.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellants, the

matter has been decided finally.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-State fairly submit that

the controversy involved in the present appeal is no more res-

integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate

Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in State Of

Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dal Chand Jat (D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No. 293/2020) and other connected matters on 13.11.2025. The

relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"19. Thus, it is apparent that the law laid down by the Apex Court of not allowing recovery of excess payment made without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee is a law of equity. A person who is working with the State Government is not authorized to make his own pay fixations.

20. In the present case on account of wrongful interpretation at the hands of the concerned District Education Officer and the Account Officers, the pay fixations were done from the initial date of appointment without taking into consideration the probationer trainee period.

21. The writ petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to be at fault, hence, while we uphold the order passed by the State Government for making re-fixation done only after considering

(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:05:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:55195-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-656/2025]

the probationer trainee period, we do not find it a case where we should allow the State to make recoveries from the teachers who are at the lowest rank of the services namely; on the post of Teacher Gr-III.

22. Our view is also buttressed from the latest views taken by the Apex Court following the aforesaid judgment of "Thomas Daniel" (supra) and "Rafiq Masih (White Washer)" (supra) in the case of "Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.": 2025 INSC 449 and the earlier judgment of "Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.": 2024 INSC 591.

23. We, accordingly, modify the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to the aforesaid extent. All the appeals are, accordingly, party allowed.

24. All pending applications stand disposed of.

25. A copy of this order be placed in each connected files."

5. In light of the aforequoted order, the present special appeal

is disposed of on the same terms. All pending applications, if any,

also stand disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

3-Zeeshan

(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:05:13 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)