Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Akhe Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11347) on 27 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:11347]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5453/2022
Akhe Singh S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of
Gandhi Colony, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Works
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department,
Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division
Jaisalmer.
5. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, (Building
And Road) Sub Division I, Jaisalmer.
6. Additional Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Pareek
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
27/02/2025
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.03.2022
passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the appeal filed
by the petitioner has been rejected in which the order dated
21.10.2013 altering the petitioner's pay-scale and the
consequential order of recovery dated dated 07.02.2014 were
challenged.
[2025:RJ-JD:11347] (2 of 5) [CW-5453/2022]
2. Mr. Shreyash Ramdev, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the respondents had at their own assessment
granted the petitioner the status of Munshi Grade-II on
18.09.1980, whereafter the status of Munshi Grade-I on
18.12.1982 and the same has been recalled abruptly by order
dated 21.10.2013 and consequently petitioner's pay too has been
re-determined and the recovery of a sum of Rs.3,34,418/- has
been sought to be effected from the petitioner vide order dated
07.02.2014.
3. Learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner
challenged the above referred order dated 21.10.2013 and
consequential recovery order, the Tribunal has rejected petitioner's
appeal by observing that the respondents had bona-fidely given
the same and if the error was bona-fide, the State could correct
its mistake and recover the same.
4. Learned counsel argued that not only the order dated
21.10.2013, whereby petitioner's salary and emoluments have
been re-fixed, but also the consequential recovery is bad in the
eye of law, as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioner prior to passing the impugned order.
5. Mr. Aishwarya Anand, learned counsel for the respondent -
State submitted that true it is, that the opportunity of hearing was
not accorded to the petitioner before passing the order dated
21.10.2013, but since the error noticed by the respondent-State
was bona-fide and apparent error on the face of record, the
respondents were justified in correcting the same.
[2025:RJ-JD:11347] (3 of 5) [CW-5453/2022]
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that even if the
notice was issued to the petitioner, he could hardly have defended
his cause.
7. In relation to petitioner's argument that recovery being
effected from the petitioner - a Class-IV employee is 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, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the recovery can be quashed only if
the excess payment sought to be recovered is for a period beyond
five years, as per condition No.3 of Para No.12 of the judgment
aforesaid.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. So far as petitioner's first contention in relation to the order
dated 21.10.2013 that he was not accorded any opportunity of
hearing is concerned, true it is, that the same ought to have been
passed after issuing notice or providing an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner. But since, the petitioner has failed to point out
any infirmity or illegality in the re-determination of the order and
also considering that the order was passed way back on
21.10.2013, this court does not find any reason to give any
indulgence to the petitioner on this count, so far as re-
determination of petitioner's salary is concerned.
10. This Court is, however, clearly of the view that after the re-
determination of salary of the petitioner, the respondents can
reduce the future pay, but cannot recover the alleged excess
[2025:RJ-JD:11347] (4 of 5) [CW-5453/2022]
payment granted to the petitioner upto the date of the order dated
21.10.2013.
11. The contention of Mr. Anand that since the petitioner's case
does not fall within Clause-(iii) of Para No.12 of the judgment in
the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is untenable in law.
12. A careful reading of Para No.12 of the judgment aforesaid
shows that five clauses are not to be read in conjunction; they are
examples where the recovery cannot be sustained. All the five
situations mentioned in Para No.12 of the judgment are situations
when the recovery can be said to be impermissible in law. If any
one of the situation covers the case of an employee, he can take
advantage of the adjudication so made.
13. Since the petitioner is an employee belonging to Class-IV, his
case is covered by clause (i) of Para No.12 of the judgment in the
case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and therefore, the order of recovery
dated 07.02.2014 is clearly contrary to the judgment in the case
of Rafiq Masih (supra). The same is, hereby, quashed.
14. After the dictation of the order, learned counsel for the
petitioner raised a grievance that in wake of pendency of the
petitioner's case challenging the recovery, the respondents have
neither given him benefit of 7th Pay Commission nor have they
granted him benefits of full pension and gratuity.
15. Be that as it may. While quashing the past recovery, the
petitioner is granted liberty to file representation before the
competent authority of the respondents to confer him the benefit
of 7th Pay Commission, full pension as well as gratuity, in case, the
same has not been done so far.
[2025:RJ-JD:11347] (5 of 5) [CW-5453/2022]
16. It will be obligatory upon the respondents to do the same
within a period of 12 weeks of receiving the representation
alongwith certified copy of the order instant.
17. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
18. Needless to observe that since the recovery has been
quashed, the respondents shall prepare the case of the petitioner
for regular pension and gratuity within the stipulated period
aforesaid.
19. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
69-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
