Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Sharma vs Swami Keshwanand Raj. Agric.U. Bikaner ... on 14 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:2390]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2063/2015
Arjun Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Swami Keshwanand Raj. Agric.u. Bikaner
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
14/01/2025
1. The grievance of the petitioner, inter alia, arises from orders
dated 02.09.2014 (Annex. 4) and 09.09.2024 (Annex. 6), vide
which though accorded benefit of regularization with effect from
05/06.09.1995, but not w.e.f. 29.08.1992. The petitioner was also
informed that his pay would remain the same as it was on
03.11.2012, prior to the issuance of the aforementioned orders.
He is also seeking mandamus directing the respondents not to
cause any recovery.
2. The petitioner was regularized on the post of Class IV on
05/06.09.1995, with a pay scale of Rs. 750-940. After due
consideration, the petitioner was granted regularization benefits
with effect from 29.08.1992 vide an order dated 11.10.2012.
3. However, on 02.09.2014, the respondent university withdrew
the order dated 11.10.2012 and changed effective date of the
regularization benefits to 05/06.09.1995. Subsequently, the
[2025:RJ-JD:2390] (2 of 3) [CW-2063/2015]
respondent university revised the petitioner's pay scale under the
2013 Rules, granting him revised increments. Hence, this petition.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and gone through the case record.
5. Vide order dated 12.03.2015, a Coordinate Bench of this
Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated
09.09.2014 (Annex. 6), which stood confirmed vide order dated
18.09.2015.
6. On a Court query whether any recovery has been caused,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that no formal order has
been passed so far.
7. 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 ?
8. Answer is in affirmative. Let us see how.
9. 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,
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
[2025:RJ-JD:2390] (3 of 3) [CW-2063/2015]
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."
10. The above principles laid down by the Apex Court read with
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. Being so, as per the ratio laid down in Rafiq
Masih(supra), the impugned orders are not sustainable.
11 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 02.09.2014 (Annex.4) and 09.09.2014 (Annex.6) are
set aside with consequences to follow. As a consequence, the
respondents are directed not to recover any amount due to
change in the date of regularization, as neither is it a case of any
misrepresentation nor any concealment on the part of the
petitioner and mistake, if any, was that of department.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
76-/Jitender/Rmathur
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
