Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohel Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 175/2024
1. Praveen Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Shravan Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 35 Years, Ward No 9 Shekhawat
Colony, Bagar, District Jhunjhunu At Present Working At
Dungarpur Medical College, Dungarpur.
2. Dr. Navneet Singh S/o Shri Vikam Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 32 Years, 202 Kb House, Pratap Nagar, 100 Feet
Road Dungarpur.
3. Dr. Tara Chand S/o Shri Narottam Singh, Aged About 31
Years, House No. 276, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur.
4. Dr. Ritul Rathore S/o Shri Prempal Singh Rathore, Aged
About 30 Years, 202, Kb House, Pratap Nagar, 100 Feet
Road, Dungarpur.
5. Dr. Brijesh Kumar Baranda S/o Shri Ratanlal Baranda,
Aged About 36 Years, 2Nd Floor, Parswa Medical Store,
Near Pratap Chowk, Hospital Road, Dungarpur.
6. Dr. Pappu Lal Salvi S/o Shri Mohan Lal Salvi, Aged About
29 Years, Gautam Lal Kharadi, Radhika Sadan New
Colony, Dungarpur.
7. Dr. Ishaan Kalvatia S/o Shri Hemraj Kalavatia, Aged
About 29 Years, Sohan Lalji Jain Gandhi Aasharam Near
Pangtanjali Hospital, Udaipur Road, Dungarpur.
8. Dr. Mohammed Khushnood S/o Late N.b. Nalamawar,
Aged About 33 Years, A 33 Shastri Nagar, Dungarpur.
9. Dr. Ajay M. Nalamwar S/o Late M.b. Nalamwar, Aged
About 34 Years, Quarter No. 5, Government Faculty
Quarter, Thana Dungarpur.
10. Dr. Radheshyam Jat S/o Shri Shaitan Singh Chouwdhary,
Aged About 34 Years, Jhalara Kui Dhani Jatipura Chomu
At Present Dungarpur.
11. Dr. Kavita Arya D/o Shri Shriram Arya, Aged About 30
Years, Shivaji Nagar, Dungarpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha
(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (2 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint
Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education
Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa
Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society
(Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And
Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 141/2024
1. Sohel Solanki S/o Shri Abdul Rasheed Solanki, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Chaniya Kirana Store, Near Nehru
Yuva Kendra, Barmer.
2. Dr. Mukesh Fulwaria S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Fulwaria, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Barmer Medical College, Barmer.
3. Dr. Aradhana Devi W/o Shri Dr. Anil Shishodiya, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Navjeewan Ke Pass, Laxmipura,
Barmer.
4. Dr. Vandana Sharma W/o Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o 302, Aakansha Apartment,
Sector 4, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur At Present Barmer
Medical College, Barmer.
5. Dr. Ghanshyam Gehlot S/o Shri Bhika Ram Gehlot, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Under Chaibili Ghati Near Neem Ka
Gatta, Bikaner At Present Barmer.
6. Dr. Motilal Khatri D/o Shri R.l. Khatri, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Khatri Street, Khatriyon Ka Michla Bas,
Barmer.
7. Dr. Sweta Amarneel D/o Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Aged About
37 Years, R/o B/4/8 Rajwest Colony, Shivkar Road,
Barmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical Education
(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (3 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
Department Govt Of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur
2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha
Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur
3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint
Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education
Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur
4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa
Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur
5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society
(Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur
6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And
Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 163/2024
1. Jeetendra Yogi S/o Rati Ram Yogi, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o 81 Housing Board Vistar, Dungarpur.
2. Dr. Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Goyal, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Chetan Das, 8/46, Housing Board,
Dungarpur.
3. Dr. Jignesh Kumar S/o Shri Mishri Mal, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Kachrulal Jain, Sf71, Shivji Nagar, Housing
Board, Dungarpur.
4. Dr. Rajesh Roat S/o Shri Shiv Ram Roat, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Plot No. 17, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur.
5. Dr. Mamta Damor S/o Shri Kal Singh Damor, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Plot No. 17, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur.
6. Dr. Prabhash Bhavsar S/o Shri Harirar Prasad, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Karulal Jain, Gokuldham Society, Near
Vardaan Kidzee School, Dungarpur.
7. Dr. Arihant Tater S/o Shri Madan Tater, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Near Garh, Ratangarh, District Churu At
Present Dungarpur.
8. Dr. Priya Vijay Kumar Gameti D/o Shri Vijay Kumar
Gameti, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 299 C/o Kesari Mal
Jain, Opposite 132 Kv Power House, Dungarpur.
9. Dr. Mala Jain D/o Shri Virendra Jain, Aged About 35
Years, R/o House Number 360, Near Pratap Circle
Hospital Road, Dungarpur.
(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (4 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
10. Dr. Ankit Gupta S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o 3/21 New Colony Towards Police
Line, Dungarpur.
11. Dr. Charita Meena D/o Shri Surendra Meena, Aged About
42 Years, R/o H. No. 1/j/17, Bramsthali Colony, Rajasthan
Baord Extension Scheme, Dungarpur.
12. Dr. Vijay Kumar Meena S/o Shri Nand Lal Meena, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Vardhanman Medical, New Hospital
Road, Dungarpur.
13. Dr. Gunvanti Meena W/o Shri Hari Narain Meena, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Vardhanman Medical, New Hospital
Road, Dungarpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical Education
Department Govt Of Rajasthan Secretraiat Jaipur
2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikita Shiksha
Bahwan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint
Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education
Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa
Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society
(Rahmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And
Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 173/2024
1. Prahlad Kalwan S/o Shri Sita Ram Kalwan, Aged About 43
Years, Aj-23/24, Mahaveer Nagar Barmer.
2. Dr. Mahendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Nawla Ram,
Aged About 44 Years, Rajeev Nagar, Sindhari Choraya,
Barmer.
3. Dr. Ram Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Kedar Nath Singhal,
Aged About 41 Years, Beriyon Ka Bas, Near Bachpan
School, Raj Colony, Barmer.
(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (5 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
4. Dr. Anil Kumar Sethiya S/o Shri Prakash Chandra Sethiya,
Aged About 45 Years, New Ganpati Market, Barmer.
5. Dr. Pratap Tanwar S/o Shri Ratan, Aged About 36 Years,
397, Agarsen Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.
6. Dr. Girish Chandra Baniya S/o Shri Panna Ram Baniya,
Aged About 43 Years, Near Income Tax Colony, Mahaveer
Nagar, Barmer.
7. Dr. Garima Gupta D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Aged
About 38 Years, 2/ba/15, Near Ganesh Choraya, Pratap
Nagar, Jodhpur.
8. Dr. Anshul Sharma S/o Shri Prakash Sharma, Aged About
43 Years, Behind Hutch Tower, Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer.
9. Dr. Madan Kumar Solanki S/o Shri Pyare Lal Solanki, Aged
About 35 Years, Ad/12/jeengar Mohalla, Mahaveer Nagar,
Barmer.
10. Dr. Neha Garg D/o Shri H.s. Garg, Aged About 36 Years,
Vijay Vitta, Behind New Jewan Hospital, Ray Colony,
Barmer.
11. Dr. Pooja Arya W/o Dr. Vikash, Aged About 39 Years, A/9,
K.k. Colony, Bikaner At Present Barmer.
12. Dr. Ganeshee Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sharma,
Aged About 40 Years, Ward No. 14, Roopa Devi School,
Dungarpur, Bikaner At Present Barmer.
13. Dr. Manish Choudhary S/o Shri Ghisa Ram Choudhary,
Aged About 38 Years, Kawaro Bhanwaro Ka Bas, Badhar
Chowk, Bilara, Jodhpur At Present Barmer.
14. Dr. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh, Aged About 35
Years, Bharatpur At Present Barmer Medical College,
Barmer.
15. Dr. Dimple Shakeet W/o Dr. Manish Chinia, Aged About 39
Years, Behind Saraf Well, Near Airfail Tower Ke Pass,
Ratangarh, Churu.
16. Dr. Alka Luniya D/o Dr. Bhikam Chand Luniya And W/o Dr.
Pawan Dhariwal, Aged About 36 Years, Teliyon Ka Nichla
Bas, Mal Godawan Road, Barmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical Education
(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 11:03:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (6 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
Department Govt Of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur
2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha
Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint
Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education
Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa
Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society
(Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And
Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Harish Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG
assisted by Ms. Anita Rajpurohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Reserved on 07/01/2025
Pronounced on 20/01/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The present Special Appeals have been preferred by the
appellants (writ petitioners) laying a challenge to the order dated
04.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble
Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
4595/2020 (Dr. Praveen Singh Shekhawat & Ors. Vs State of
Rajasthan & Ors.).
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (7 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
2. The impugned order was passed, dismissing the writ
petitions preferred by the appellants (writ petitioners), impugning
the order dated 27.06.2019 [as reflected from the prayer clause of
the writ petition(s)], pursuant to which the respondent
department sought recovery of the remote area allowance granted
to the probation trainees. Furthermore, as per the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court, the writ
petitioners also laid a challenge to the office order dated
14.05.2020, whereby the reduction in the salaries of the writ
petitioners was made as well as the office order dated
29.05.2020, whereby the excess amount of salary paid to the writ
petitioners was ordered to be recovered in four equal quarterly
installments from their future salary.
3. As against the order issued by the Finance Department in
question, the case of appellants (writ petitioners) as represented
by Dr. Harish Kumar Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants, is
that the appellants (writ petitioners) were employed as Senior
Demonstrators and Assistant Professors in the respondent
department and are posted at Government Medical College,
Dungarpur. Their employment is governed by the provisions of the
Rajasthan Medical Education Society Jaipur Personnel's
(Recruitment and Other Conditions) Employment Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2017'), which are the bye-
laws framed by the Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (8 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
3.1. The appellants (writ petitioners), since their appointment as
Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators, were receiving a
salary along with a Remote Area Allowance. This allowance was
extended to them in accordance with the notification dated
08.03.2018, ensuring parity with other employees who were
similarly entitled to the benefit.
3.2. By order dated 27.06.2019, the respondent department,
without providing the appellants (writ petitioners) an opportunity
of being heard, issued a letter stating that, as per Schedule V of
the Rules of 2017, they are probationer/trainees and therefore not
entitled to receive the Remote Area Allowance.
3.3. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2019, the appellants
(writ petitioners) preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12538/2019
before this Hon'ble Court. The Court, by an interim order, stayed
the effect and operation of the impugned order in favor of the
petitioners/appellants. Notably, following the stay on the order
dated 27.06.2019, the appellants (writ petitioners) continued to
receive the Remote Area Allowance, except for the month of July,
2019.
3.4. Subsequently, the matter was heard by the learned Single
Judge of this Hon'ble Court, and vide the impugned order dated
04.10.2023, the writ petition, along with other connected matters,
were dismissed. Hence, the present special appeals have been
preferred by the appellants (writ petitioners).
4. Dr. Harish Kumar Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the order dated 27.06.2019/10.05.2019
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (9 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
issued by the Finance Department, clarifying the position
regarding remote area allowances being not admissible to the
probation trainees like the present appellants, cannot be deemed
valid unless supported by an amendment to the corresponding
rules. Furthermore, even if the contents of the order dated
27.06.2019 are presumed to be correct, without conceding the
same, its applicability would only be prospective. Consequently,
any payments made prior to the issuance of the clarification dated
27.06.2019 cannot be considered unlawful and thus cannot be
recovered.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent
authorities have failed to provide any justification for withholding
the remote area allowance from the appellant and/or seeking to
recover the allowance already paid, from the appellants, and have
thereby adopted an arbitrary and discriminatory approach in the
matter. This is particularly untenable given that no distinction
exists between probationer trainees and regular employees with
respect to the performance of duties in remote areas.
4.1.1. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied
upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble
Court in the case of Gopal Kumawat vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2963/2007, decided on
29.07.2015).
4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellants are
entitled to the remote area allowance as explicitly provided under
Rule 29 of the Rules of 2017. The said rule contains no restriction
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (10 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
or prohibition that would preclude the appellants from asserting
their entitlement to the allowance.
4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent
department has exhibited disparity by granting the remote area
allowance to individuals holding the posts of Professor and
Associate Professor while simultaneously denying the same benefit
to the appellants during the period of probation, thereby creating
a class within class. He further contended that while the teaching
staff, including Professors, Deans, Superintendents, Additional
Superintendents, and others, are remunerated in accordance with
Schedule VI of the Rules of 2017, the appellants, serving as
Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators, are receiving a
consolidated salary as prescribed under Schedule V, which is not
permissible under the law.
4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent
authorities failed to afford the petitioners an opportunity of
hearing before disallowing the said allowance and/or recovering
the amount thereof already paid to them.
5. Per contra, Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by
Ms. Anita Rajpurohit, appearing on behalf of the respondents
vehemently opposed the aforementioned submissions made on
behalf of the appellants and emphatically supported the impugned
order.
5.1. It was submitted that appellants (writ petitioners) posted as
the Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators, were fully
cognizant of their status as probational-trainees under the
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (11 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
provisions of the Rules of 2017 and the emoluments they were
entitled to. Consequently, any excess amount erroneously
disbursed to them cannot confer upon them a legitimate right to
retain such payments.
5.2. It was further contended that regarding the issue of
providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, the house
rent allowance and remote area allowance were disbursed
erroneously and in contravention of the provisions of the Rules of
2017. As such, the respondents were within their rights to recover
the said amounts without issuing prior notice to the petitioners
and in the given circumstances, grant of such prior opportunity to
the appellants, would have made no difference.
5.3. Learned Counsel also submitted that Schedule V, in
conjunction with Rule 29 of the Rules of 2017, was designed to
establish uniform fixed remuneration for probationer-trainees
across various categories, including teaching and non-teaching
staff. The respondent department has not engaged in any
discriminatory practices, as regular employees, upon successful
completion of their probationary period, receive emoluments in
accordance with Schedules VI and VII, as prescribed under Rule
32(1) and Rule 32(2), respectively.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case along with the judgment cited at the Bar.
7. This Court observes that the appellants (writ petitioners),
appointed as Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators
pursuant to the Rules of 2017, were granted the remote area
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (12 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
allowance by the respondent department in accordance with the
order dated 08.03.2018. However, through the subsequent order
dated 27.06.2019, the respondents asserted that the
petitioners/appellants, being probationers governed by Schedule V
of the Rules of 2017 until the completion of their probation period,
are not entitled to receive the remote area allowance.
8. This Court further observes that it is an uncontested fact that
the appellants were cognizant of the employment conditions
outlined under the Rules of 2017, which governed their initial
engagement for a probationary period of one year, as specified in
the proviso to Rule 29. Upon successful completion of the
probationary period, the appellants were to receive remuneration
determined in accordance with Schedule VI and Schedule VII, as
provided under Rule 32(1) and Rule 32(2) of the Rules of 2017,
respectively.
8.1. Upon a meticulous examination of the relevant provisions of
the Rules of 2017, this Court observes that three teaching posts,
namely Assistant Professor, Senior Demonstrator, and Physical
Training Instructor, have been categorized under Schedule V,
alongside various non-teaching posts. It is further noted that
these positions constitute entry-level posts of the teaching staff
and that they necessitate a period of initial training and evaluation
by the respondent department, even subsequent to the selection
process, so to ensure that the candidates are adequately equipped
to perform their duties effectively. This evaluation period is
formalized as a probationary period. Final appointments are made
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (13 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
only upon the successful completion of this probationary period,
the duration of which varies depending on the specific post.
Noticeably, the respondent department retains discretionary
authority to reject the appointment of candidates who fail to
demonstrate requisite efficiency during their probationary period,
notwithstanding the fulfillment of the initial eligibility criteria for
employment by them.
8.2. This Court is conscious of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union
of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, wherein it was held that an
appointment on probation is initially made to mitigate potential
errors in human judgment while selecting suitable candidates for
service. The probation period allows the employer to assess the
employees' performance, including their work quality, efficiency,
sincerity, and competence, in the following words:
"An appointment to a permanent post in government service
on probation means, as in the case of a person appointed by
a private employer, that the servant so appointed is taken
on trial."
8.3. The other teaching posts, excluding the aforementioned
three, are promotional positions generally contingent upon factors
such as the years of experience held by the candidate, the
educational qualification, by virtue of post held and other criteria
which may differ from post to post and thus, a probation period
prior to appointment on these posts is not required.
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (14 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
8.4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that the distinction created by the respondents by keeping
all the probationer-trainees under a common schedule, i.e.,
schedule V, is a reasonable classification. It is undisputed that post
the probation period, the teaching staff including the probationer-
trainees are remunerated as per Schedule VI read with Rule 32(1)
and the non- teaching staff are paid as per Schedule VII read with
Rule 32 (2) of the rules of 2017, as regular employees only upon
successful completion of the probation period and therefore, no
discrimination whatsoever by the respondents, as has been
alleged by the appellants.
8.4.1. This Court further observes that since the distinction in
question is reasonable and legally valid, the respondents' action of
issuing the order dated 27.06.2019 stating that the
petitioners/appellants are not entitled to the remote area
allowance and the same has been erroneously paid to them during
the period of probation, is correct and therefore, recovery of the
amount paid in excess is liable to be recovered by the respondent
department from the future salary of the appellants.
9. Addressing the contention that the respondents ought to
have provided an opportunity of hearing before issuing the
impugned orders, this Court observes that while it is preferable to
grant such an opportunity, particularly when the recovery of the
alleged excess amount impacts the civil rights of the appellants,
the absence of such an opportunity does not alter the legal
position. The excess payment was made inadvertently and is
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (15 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
explicitly contrary to Rule 29 and Rule 32(6) of the Rules of 2017.
Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be deemed unlawful
solely on the grounds of non-compliance with the principles of
natural justice, as such non-compliance is not fatal to the
respondents' right to recover the erroneously disbursed amounts
from the petitioners/appellants.
10. This Court notes the contention of the appellants that the
respondents cannot reduce the salary of a probationer during the
probation period, as held by the Division Bench of this High Court
in Gopal Kumawat (supra). However, it is observed that the
matter is currently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
with a stay in place, and thus, the said judgment, at this stage,
does not render any assistance to the appellants' case. Moreover,
the Rules challenged in Gopal Kumawat (supra) differ from those
involved in the present case.
11. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court observes
that the impugned order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court has dealt with the question
raised viz-a-viz the legality of the impugned order dated
27.09.2019 passed by the respondent department, elaborately in
accordance with the settled principles of law governing the field as
well as the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the same
requires no interference of this Court.
11.1. Consequently, the present special appeals are dismissed,
and accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.10.2023 passed by
learned Single Judge is upheld. However, it is directed that the
[2025:RJ-JD:977-DB] (16 of 16) [SAW-175/2024]
respondents may recover the excess amount in question from the
future salary of the appellants in equal quarterly installments and
not in lumpsum, while keeping into due consideration that the
same may not cause unforseen financial difficulty to the
appellants. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
