Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gajendra Mathur vs Jodhpur Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:7358]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1648/2004
Gajendra Mathur S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Lal Mathur, Aged
about 40 Years, R/o 2-A-2, Housing Board Colony, Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jodhpur Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Jodhpur.
2. The Account Officer (D & M), Jodhpur Vidhut Vitran Nigam
Ltd., Pali (Raj.).
3. Superintending Engineer (Civil) Jodhpur Vidhut Vitran Nigam
Ltd., Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradhyuman Singh Shekhawat for
Mr. Manvendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharnia
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
05/02/2025
1. On perusal of the record, this Court found that there are no
pages after page 26 in the paper-book. It appears that the same
have been misplaced or lost.
2. Be that as it may.
3. At the request of the Court, Mr. Vipul Dharnia has provided
photocopy of the writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1648/2004 : Gajendra Mathur Vs. Jodhpur Vidhut Vitran Nigam
Ltd. & Anrs.) while stating that the respondents have not filed any
reply.
4. The photocopy of the writ petition with initials of Mr. Dharnia
is taken on record.
[2025:RJ-JD:7358] (2 of 3) [CW-1648/2004]
5. Office is directed to keep the photocopy submitted by Mr.
Vipul Dharnia tagged with the record of this case.
6. The writ petition impugns the order dated 01.07.2002,
whereby recovery was initiated against the petitioner.
7. Mr. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner who was appointed on the post of Junior
Engineer-Grade-II in the year 1985 was conferred first selection
grade (i.e. pay scale applicable to the Assistant Engineer) on
completion of 9 of years service by way of the order dated
21.02.1995. But after 7 years of service the respondents abruptly
sought to recover the amount from him, that too without affording
any opportunity of hearing.
8. The petitioner therefore, preferred a writ petition which was
registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.421/2002, wherein an
interim order was granted, allowing the respondents to give notice
to the petitioner and then proceed. In furtherance thereof, the
respondent-Nigam had showed a formality of observing principles
of natural justice and passed the order dated 01.07.2002 and
directed that recovery of excess payment (as observed by the
Account Officer, O & M, Pali) be made.
9. Learned counsel argued that the Superintendent Engineer
has ordered to recover the alleged excess amount solely on the
basis of recommendation of the Account Officer, without applying
his own mind.
10. He argued that the order is not only unreasoned and without
application of mind but also contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors.
Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He
[2025:RJ-JD:7358] (3 of 3) [CW-1648/2004]
asserted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding
Junior Engineer grade-III post and prayed that order under
challenge be quashed.
11. Mr. Dharnia, learned counsel appearing for the Nigam
vehementaly opposed the petitioner's contention and submitted
that when some benefit is erroneously granted, the employeris
entitled to recover the same.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. There is no gainsaying the fact that benefit of first selection
grade on completion of 9 years was granted to the petitioner by
the respondent-Nigam at its own will. There is no allegation of
concealment or misrepresentation.
14. As has been held by the Supreme Court, benefits granted to
an employee that too when he was holding grade-IV and grade-III
post cannot be made unless the recovery is being made in relation
to an amount which the employee had received/derived by way of
misrepresentation or stating wrong facts.
15. In absence of such an allegation recovery of the already
disbursed amount cannot be countenanced in light of the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer).
16. The writ petition is therefore, allowed; the impugned
recovery order dated 01.07.2002 is hereby quashed.
17. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
5-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
