Chagan Lal Kumhar vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:21445)
2025 Latest Caselaw 333 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 333 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chagan Lal Kumhar vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:21445) on 5 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:21445]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12724/2015

Chagan Lal Kumhar S/o Shri Velaji Kumhar, aged about 63 years,
R/o R.K. Radio, Kumhar Vada, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principa; Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department of Secondary Education,
Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Sirohi.
4. The Principal, Government Adarsh Higher Secondary School,
Village Gole, District Sirohi.
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Manvendra Singh
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C assisted by
                                  Mr. Vaibhav Bang.


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

05/05/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the

order/letter dated 08.10.2015 issued by the Principal, Government

Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Village Gole, District Sirohi,

whereby, a recovery of an amount of Rs.80,309/- has been

directed against the petitioner.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that the

petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III

in the respondent-Department. During the course of his services,

he was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade-II in the year 1990

and thereafter to the post of Headmaster vide order dated

04.08.2010. The petitioner retired from the post of Headmaster

upon attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2013. Upon

[2025:RJ-JD:21445] (2 of 4) [CW-12724/2015]

his superannuation, he was given all the retiral benefits in the pay

scale to which he was entitled to, as per the law. However, after

the superannuation of the petitioner, the respondents issued an

order dated 08.10.2015, whereby, the recovery of an amount of

Rs.80,309/- has been directed against the petitioner on account of

excess payment due to an error in the pay fixation. Hence, the

present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before

issuing the order dated 08.10.2015, no show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was

afforded to him. He further submits that the petitioner never made

any misrepresentation and has never submitted any wrong

information for grant of pay fixation at any point of his service

tenure. He submits that the respondents, on their own, have

calculated the consequential benefits after appropriately fixing the

pay scale of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held

responsible for any inadvertent or administrative error, if any,

committed by the department in the process of pay fixation. He,

therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and

the order dated 08.10.2015 may be quashed and set-aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for

the petitioner and submits that the audit authorities, after taking

into consideration the fact that the petitioner's pay fixation has

wrongly been made, has ordered for recovery of an amount of

Rs.80,309/-. However, he very fairly submits that no show cause

notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the recovery

order dated 08.10.2015. He further submits that since the

[2025:RJ-JD:21445] (3 of 4) [CW-12724/2015]

petitioner is not entitled for the pay fixation granted to him,

therefore, the respondents are within their rights to recover the

excess amount paid to him. He, therefore, prays that the writ

petition may be dismissed.

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant record of the case.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner superannuated

from his services as Headmaster in the year 2013 and the

respondents have given the retiral benefits after determining the

pay fixation. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the

petitioner has either misrepresented any facts or has furnished

any wrong information for getting a higher pay fixation. After the

superannuation of the petitioner in the year 2013, the recovery

order has been issued without issuance of any show cause notice.

Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the action taken by

the respondents is de hors the law and is not sustainable.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab

Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in AIR 2015 SC 696 has laid down

the following principles:-

"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 the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

[2025:RJ-JD:21445] (4 of 4) [CW-12724/2015]

(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."

9. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and considering the fact

that petitioner is a retired employee against whom no allegation of

misrepresentation or fraud has been levelled, it is clear on record

that the respondents have committed an error while passing the

order dated 08.10.2015 and the same cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition merits acceptance and the

same is allowed. The order dated 08.10.2015 issued against the

petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.80,309/- is quashed

and set aside.

11. Needless to say that the benefits, which are otherwise

amenable to the petitioner in accordance with law, shall be