Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yagya Narayan Joshi vs State Agriculture And Ors. ... on 21 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:24784]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12818/2011
Yagya Narayan Joshi S/o Shri Shyam Lal Joshi, aged 56 years,
R/o.55, Guljar Nagar, Bhadvasiya Link Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Agriculture
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Administrator, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Jaipur.
3. The General Manager (Admn.),Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Accounts Officer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Jaipur.
5. The Finance Advisor, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Jaipur.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Jodhpur First, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Ojha for
Mr. S.G. Ojha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
21/05/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayer :-
"(i) The impugned letter/ order dated 5.12.2011
(Annex.13) may kindly be quashed and set aside and
it may be given effect as if it was never passed
against the petitioner".
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy
involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment
[2025:RJ-JD:24784] (2 of 3) [CW-12818/2011]
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer) etc., AIR
2015 Supreme Court 696, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under :-
"12. 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
herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the
employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-
III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group
'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or
employees who are due to retire within one year,
of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from 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".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was initially appointed in the respondent Department on the post
of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and was granted the benefits of
Revised Pay Scale on 19.09.1984. While the petitioner was serving
in the respondent Department, an order of recovery dated
05.12.2011 was passed, without giving an opportunity of hearing
to him. He submits that the order dated 05.12.2011 on the face of
[2025:RJ-JD:24784] (3 of 3) [CW-12818/2011]
it is in violation of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rafiq Masih (supra). He, therefore, prays that the writ
petition may be allowed and the order dated 05.12.2011 may be
quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case.
Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was granted
the revision of his pay scale by the respondent Department. The
petitioner has not misrepresented any wrong facts before the
respondents for getting the revision of his pay scale. There is
nothing on record which shows that the petitioner was granted the
pay scale by presenting wrong or incorrect information.
In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the recoveries cannot be effected from the petitioner after a
delay of about 25 years by passing the order dated 05.12.2011
and that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to him.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition
merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order dated
05.12.2011 is quashed and set aside.
No order as to costs.
The stay application and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
20-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
