Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prahlad Panwar vs State Of Raj And Ors. ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:48501]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1497/2014
Prahlad Panwar S/o Shri Jagdish Singh aged 61 years R/o A
Sectr, Shashtri Nagar, Beneth Ganesh Garh, Ward No.52, Ajmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Forest Department,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. District Forest Officer, Nagaur
3. Joint Director, Pension and Pension Welfare Department,
Regional Office, Ajmer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.J.C. Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Mishra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
10/11/2025
1. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing
orders dated 28.02.2013 (Annex.3 & 4) issued by the respondents
and direct them to refund the amount of Rs.33,651/- with interest
to the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated that facts of the case is that the petitioner was a
permanent employee in the Forest Department and served on the
post of Forester under respondent No.2. He retired from service
w.e.f. 31.12.2012, as evident by the order dated 10.10.2012
issued by respondent No.2. However, in the said order, his
designation was erroneously mentioned as Sahayak Vanpal.
Subsequently, this clerical error was rectified by respondent No. 2
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:29:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48501] (2 of 8) [CW-1497/2014]
through an order dated 28.02.2013, substituting Sahayak Vanpal
with Vanpal (Forester). He was granted the benefit of the Third
Assured Career Progression (ACP) upon completion of 27 years of
service vide order dated 09.01.2013, fixing his pay in the scale of
₹5000-8000 from 21.02.2004, with initial fixation at ₹5000/-.
2.1. Pursuant to the implementation of the VIth Pay Commission
recommendations, the petitioner's pay was revised to ₹13,340/-
as of 01.09.2006 in Pay Band ₹9300-34800 with Grade Pay
₹3200, and he received subsequent annual increments as follows:
Effective Date Pay Fixed (₹)
01.09.2006 13,340
01.07.2007 13,740
01.07.2008 14,160
01.07.2009 14,590
01.07.2010 15,030
01.07.2011 15,490
01.07.2012 15,960
2.2. Post retirement, the respondent No. 2, vide order dated
28.02.2013, unilaterally altered the petitioner's pay fixation and
reduced the increments earlier granted, without furnishing the
original order; only a photocopy was provided. The revised pay
structure resulted in a substantial reduction, as depicted below:
Date Original Pay (₹) Revised Pay (₹)
01.09.2006 13,340 13,060
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:29:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48501] (3 of 8) [CW-1497/2014]
Date Original Pay (₹) Revised Pay (₹)
01.07.2007 13,740 13,460
01.07.2008 14,160 13,870
01.07.2009 14,590 14,290
01.07.2010 15,030 14,720
01.07.2011 15,490 15,170
01.07.2012 15,960 15,630
2.3. Consequent to this revision, the respondents further issued
another order dated 28.02.2013, effecting a recovery of ₹33,651/-
from the petitioner's Leave Encashment amount of ₹2,68,840/-.
This recovery was made without prior notice, opportunity of
hearing, or any calculation shared with the petitioner.
2.4. It is pertinent to note that the increments earlier granted to
the petitioner were extended suo motu by the respondents and
not upon any misrepresentation or request by the petitioner. The
petitioner, a retired employee, has already utilized the amount
received in good faith. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 issued
Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. 830899 (R) GPO/CPO dated
07.03.2013, calculating the pension on the reduced pay, as per
order 28.02.2013.
2.5. Aggrieved, the petitioner served a legal notice dated
25.04.2013 upon the respondents through counsel, demanding
refund of the deducted amount with interest and correction of the
pensionary benefits. In response, respondent No. 2, vide letter
dated 01.05.2013, assured that a reply would be furnished upon
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:29:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48501] (4 of 8) [CW-1497/2014]
receipt of the service records from the Pension Office, Ajmer.
However, no further communication or action ensued.
2.6. Having received no redress, the petitioner, being aggrieved by
the arbitrary reduction of salary, unlawful recovery, and issuance
of the PPO on a reduced scale, now prefers this writ petition
challenging orders 28.02.2013 (Annex.3 & 4, and seeks
restoration of his legitimate pay and pensionary benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
orders dated 28.02.2013 (Annexures 3 and 4) have been passed
in flagrant disregard of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch
as no prior notice, explanation, or opportunity of hearing was
afforded to the petitioner before effecting the arbitrary reduction
of his salary and the unilateral recovery of ₹33,651/-. The said
orders are devoid of reasoning, non-speaking in nature, and bereft
of any legal justification. It is further urged that the increments
and revised pay were granted suo motu by the respondents and
not as a result of any request, misrepresentation, or concealment
by the petitioner; therefore, their subsequent withdrawal and
recovery are patently arbitrary, unjust, and unsustainable in law.
In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of
Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334,
wherein it was held that recovery from retired employees who are
not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud is impermissible in
law. The impugned action is also alleged to be violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, being discriminatory and
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:29:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48501] (5 of 8) [CW-1497/2014]
unreasonable. The petitioner further avers that his pension and
gratuity have been erroneously computed on the basis of the
reduced pay scale instead of his last drawn emoluments,
necessitating due revision of the Pension Payment Order (PPO)
and release of the withheld gratuity. In these circumstances, and
there being no other efficacious remedy available, the petitioner
has rightly invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court, seeking quashment of the impugned orders, refund of the
recovered amount with interest, and recalculation of his
pensionary benefits on the basis of the actual last drawn pay.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner's claim is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is
contended that the impugned orders dated 28.02.2013 were
issued to rectify errors that had crept into the petitioner's pay
fixation and service record, and such rectification was made in
accordance with relevant departmental orders and pay-revision
circulars. The respondents assert that no vested right can arise
from an erroneous pay fixation and that the recovery effected
represents an adjustment of excess payment made to the
petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner was not
subjected to any prejudice, as the orders were passed in due
administrative course and within the competence of the authorities
concerned. The respondents maintain that the writ petition lacks
substance, involves disputed questions of fact, and is therefore
not maintainable. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be
dismissed as untenable, the impugned orders be upheld as lawful
and justified, and no relief be granted to the petitioner.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:29:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48501] (6 of 8) [CW-1497/2014]
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the counsel for the respondent and minutely gone through the
impugned orders as also the material available on record.
6. Upon a meticulous perusal of the record and careful
consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for both parties, this Court finds substantial merit in the
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The impugned orders
dated 28.02.2013 (Annexures 3 and 4), whereby the petitioner's
salary was retrospectively reduced and a recovery of ₹33,651/-
was effected from his leave encashment, suffer from glaring
procedural and legal infirmities.
6.1. It is evident from the record that the said orders were issued
post retirement, without issuance of any prior notice, show-cause,
or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such action is in
flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice particularly
audi alteram partem which mandates that no adverse financial or
service-related order be passed without affording the affected
party an opportunity to be heard. The respondents have also
failed to produce any documentary evidence or departmental note
sheets indicating when and how the alleged error in pay fixation
was discovered, or on what basis the so-called rectification was
deemed necessary. The impugned orders, being non-speaking and
unreasoned, thus fail the test of administrative fairness and
transparency.
6.2. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner's increments
and revised pay were extended suo motu by the department, and
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:29:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48501] (7 of 8) [CW-1497/2014]
not on account of any misrepresentation, concealment, or fraud on
his part. It is well-settled in law, as reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, that recovery of excess payment
cannot be effected from employees belonging to the lower strata,
including Group 'C' and 'D' employees, particularly after their
retirement, where there is no element of misrepresentation or
fraud. The petitioner, being a retired Forester (Group 'C'
employee), squarely falls within the protection of the said legal
principle.
6.3. Moreover, the respondents have computed the petitioner's
pension and gratuity on the basis of a reduced and unlawful pay
scale, contrary to the mandate of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972, which explicitly provides that pension and gratuity
shall be determined on the basis of the last drawn emoluments.
The impugned revision of pay and consequential reduction in
pension are therefore ultra vires, arbitrary, and unsustainable in
law.
6.4. This Court also notes that the respondents have failed to
justify why the order granting correct pay fixation vide Annexure 2
was not formally superseded before issuing the impugned orders,
further reinforcing the arbitrariness of their action. Administrative
authorities cannot, under the guise of rectification, reopen settled
matters after a considerable lapse of time, particularly when such
action results in financial hardship to a retired employee.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:29:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48501] (8 of 8) [CW-1497/2014]
6.5. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the
impugned orders dated 28.02.2013 (Annexures 3 and 4) are
illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The action of the respondents in reducing
the petitioner's salary and effecting recovery post-retirement is
unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 28.02.2013 (Annexures 3 and 4) are hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the
recovered amount of ₹33,651/- to the petitioner forthwith, along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
recovery until the date of actual payment.
7.1. The respondents are further directed to recalculate and
disburse the petitioner's pensionary benefits, including gratuity, on
the basis of his last drawn emoluments, ignoring the unlawful
reduction effected by the impugned orders, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.
7.2. The stay petition and all pending applications if any shall
stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
5-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:29:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
