Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs Avvnl Ajmer And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:50209) on 20 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:50209]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7831/2015
Om Prakash S/o Late Shri Hira Lal Jl, bv caste Paliwal, aged
about 58 years. resident of Plot No.4, Nimuch Mata Scheme,
Near Canal, Devali, District Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer through its
Chairman cum Managing Director, Old Power House,
Hathi Bhata, Ajmer.
2. Secretary (Administration), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Old Power House, Hathi Bhata, Ajmer.
3. Accounts Officer (Udaipur Circle), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Udaipur.
4. Assistant Engineer (Power House-II), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Udaipur, District Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SKM Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. DS Sodha
Mr. Rajat Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/11/2025
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial
intervention for the quashing of the impugned orders dated
24.04.2014 (Annexure-06) and 30.06.2015 (Annexure-10), as
passed by the respondent authorities, and for a declaration and
direction for the refund of the amount of Rs.3,34,566/- along with
interest at the prescribed rate.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50209] (2 of 4) [CW-7831/2015]
2. The factual matrix, as discerned from the record, indicates
that the petitioner was allegedly overpaid a sum of Rs.3,34,566/-
on account of a computational oversight committed by the officers
of the respondent department. The petitioner, at all material
times, acted in good faith and has not engaged in any act of
misrepresentation, concealment, or fraud. The excess
disbursement arose solely from administrative lapse and bears no
nexus to any deliberate or culpable conduct attributable to the
petitioner.
3. It is a cardinal principle of equity that no person ought to be
unjustly enriched at the expense of another, nor should a person
suffer detriment for circumstances beyond their control. In the
present matter, having allowed the overpayment to remain
undisturbed for several years, the respondents cannot now effect
recovery from the petitioner's lawful entitlements, including salary,
pension, or other retiral benefits. Any such attempt would be
manifestly inequitable, devoid of legal sanction, and would
constitute a grave miscarriage of justice.
4. The petitioner, while not pressing for fixation of entire
arrears or additional consequential benefits, has invoked the
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2014) 8
SCC 883, and relies upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8989/2017 decided on
25.08.2023, wherein similar issues of excess recovery arising from
administrative errors were considered. The principles enunciated
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50209] (3 of 4) [CW-7831/2015]
therein underscore that where an overpayment results from
official miscalculation and the recipient is free from blame,
recovery cannot be enforced to the prejudice of the recipient.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
niceties of the matter.
5.1. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this
Court finds as follows:
a. The excess amount disbursed to the petitioner was solely
attributable to a computational error committed by the
respondents;
b. The petitioner has at no stage engaged in fraud,
misrepresentation, or concealment;
c. Recovery of the said amount from the petitioner's legitimate
dues would be inequitable and legally unsustainable;
d. The principles of natural justice and equity, as well as the
binding precedents, mandate that the petitioner be protected
against any unilateral and arbitrary attempt by the respondents to
recoup amounts arising from their own administrative lapse.
6. In light of the foregoing observations, the impugned orders
dated 24.04.2014 and 30.06.2015 are hereby quashed and set
aside. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of
Rs.3,34,566/- to the petitioner forthwith, together with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum, calculated from the date of recovery
until the date of actual payment.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50209] (4 of 4) [CW-7831/2015]
6.1. The respondents shall ensure compliance with this direction
within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of
this order is placed before them. In the event of any default, the
petitioner shall be entitled to seek execution of this order as if it
were a decree of this Court.
6.2. It is clarified that the directions issued herein do not entitle
the petitioner to any additional claims, except for the refund of the
excess amount along with the interest specified herein. The Court
emphasizes that the present judgment is grounded in principles of
equity, natural justice, and settled judicial precedents.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent
indicated. The stay petition stands disposed of. No costs are
awarded.
8. Order accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
69-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
