[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Om Prakash (2026:Rj-Jd:568-Db) on 7 January, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:568-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 860/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Elementary
Education, Bikaner.
2. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Bikaner.
3. The Zila Parishad, Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
4. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer/headmaster,
Government Sr. Secondary School, Kankrala, Panchayat
Samiti Kalyanpur, District- Barmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash S/o Shri Bala Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident
Of Ward No.3, Ummedpura, Balotara, District- Barmer
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot, for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG.
For Respondent(s) : -------
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
ORDER
07/01/2026
1. The matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act seeking delay in filing the appeal.
2. Having considered the application and the reasons stated
therein, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is
hereby condoned.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellants, the
matter has been decided finally.
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 03:24:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:568-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-860/2025]
4. Learned counsel for the appellants-State fairly submits that
the controversy involved in the present appeal is no more res-
integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate
Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in State Of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dal Chand Jat (D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No. 293/2020) and other connected matters on 13.11.2025. The
relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"19. Thus, it is apparent that the law laid down by the Apex
Court of not allowing recovery of excess payment made without
any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee is a
law of equity. A person who is working with the State
Government is not authorized to make his own pay fixations.
20. In the present case on account of wrongful interpretation at
the hands of the concerned District Education Officer and the
Account Officers, the pay fixations were done from the initial
date of appointment without taking into consideration the
probationer trainee period.
21. The writ petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to be at fault,
hence, while we uphold the order passed by the State
Government for making re-fixation done only after considering
the probationer trainee period, we do not find it a case where we
should allow the State to make recoveries from the teachers who
are at the lowest rank of the services namely; on the post of
Teacher Gr-III.
22. Our view is also buttressed from the latest views taken by
the Apex Court following the aforesaid judgment of "Thomas
Daniel" (supra) and "Rafiq Masih (White Washer)" (supra) in the
case of "Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack &
Ors.": 2025 INSC 449 and the earlier judgment of "Jagdish
Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.": 2024 INSC 591.
23. We, accordingly, modify the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge to the aforesaid extent. All the appeals are,
accordingly, party allowed.
24. All pending applications stand disposed of.
25. A copy of this order be placed in each connected files."
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 03:24:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:568-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-860/2025]
5. In light of the aforequoted order, the present special appeal
is disposed of on the same terms. All pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
135-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 03:24:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
