Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chunni Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1926) on 13 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:1926]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10263/2024
Chunni Lal S/o Shri Bhura Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Anopdas Ki Jhopdi, Opposite Old Police Line, Sirohi - 307001
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Agriculture
Marketing, Ground Floor, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Vaniki Path,
C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302005.
2. Secretary, Krashi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sumerpur.
3. Chief Accounting Officer, Agriculture Marketing, Jaipur.
4. Inder Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Naya Vaas, Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjul Mehta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Subhash Choudhary.
Mr. LK Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
13/01/2025
1. Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing of an order
dated 14.08.2023 (Annex.13), vide which the respondents
reduced his pension and another order dated 23.08.2023
(Annex.14), whereby the amount of his gratuity was also reduced
by Rs.1,32,738. He further seeks a direction to refund the amount
already recovered from him.
2. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Lower Division
Clerk (LDC) on 19.09.1984. Sometime in year 1990, the
Respondent Authorities directed both the Petitioner and another
employee, Respondent No. 4, to reappear for the typing test.
[2025:RJ-JD:1926] (2 of 4) [CW-10263/2024]
However, an issue arose in 2023, shortly before the Petitioner's
retirement regarding his type test qualification. After verification,
the Secretary subsequently confirmed that the Petitioner had
passed the type test in 1985 and that no recovery was necessary.
3. Despite aforesaid verification, the Chief Accounting Officer
passed an order in July 2023 holding that petitioner had
incorrectly received increments granted in 1994, 2003, and 2012
after completing 9, 18, and 27 years of service, respectively. The
Petitioner was due to retire on 31.07.2023. This led to passing of
impugned order to recover the alleged excess payments already
made between 2012 and 2017. Further orders followed reducing
both the pension and gratuity, citing the same reason for the
excess payments.
4. At same time, respondent No. 4, who was also appointed on
the same day and passed the type test in 1990, was not subjected
to any such adverse recovery actions. Hence, this petition.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions.
6. What emerges herein is a short controversy- as to whether
the case of the petitioner is covered by ratio laid down in State of
Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors.:
(2015) 4 SCC 334 ?
7. Answer is in affirmative. Let us see how.
8. Relevant para-18 of the judgment, ibid, enumerated with the
circumstances under which recovery can be made, is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship
which would govern employees on the issue of recovery,
where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer,
[2025:RJ-JD:1926] (3 of 4) [CW-10263/2024]
in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the
decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready
reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III
and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment
has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the
order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully
been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has
been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully
been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would
be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would
far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to
recover."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The above principles laid down by the Apex Court when
applied to the impugned order, leave no manner of doubt that the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment
rendered in Rafiq Masih, ibid.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents controverts the
aforesaid judgment and states that the benefits were erroneously
conferred to the petitioner.
11. I am unable to persuade myself with the aforesaid
submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. Being so,
as per para-18 sub-clause(ii) of the judgment ibid, the impugned
orders are not sustainable.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 14.08.2023 (Annex.13) & 23.08.2023 (Annex.14)
are set aside with consequences to follow. Respondents are
directed to reimburse the amount recovered from the petitioner
along with admissible rate of interest as per the service Rules.
[2025:RJ-JD:1926] (4 of 4) [CW-10263/2024]
13. Needful be done within a period of two months upon the
petitioner approaching the respondents with web-print of the
instant order.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
17-/Jitender/Rmathur
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
