Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 264

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Mekha Ram and Others Etc. Etc. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others Etc. Etc. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2229-2234 of 2022 with Civil Appeal Nos. 2235-2249 of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos. 2250-2251 of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 2022 and Civil Appeal Nos. 2253-2256 of 2022
Decided On : 29-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Restitution – Advantages secured by a litigant, on account of orders of court, at his behest, should not be perpetuated.
(2) No one can be permitted to take benefit of wrong order passed by court which has been subsequently set aside by higher forum/court – No party should be prejudiced because of order of court.

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 144 – Restitution – Recovery of excess amount paid to paid to original writ petitioners treating period of training as a period of leave permissible to him/her – Amount paid in excess to appellants was not due to any mistake on part of State/State authorities – Excess amount has been paid pursuant to order passed by Single Judge, which has been subsequently set aside by Division Bench – On quashing and setting aside judgment and order passed by Single Judge under which original writ petitioners were paid excess amount, necessary consequences must follow – Amount paid in excess pursuant to order passed by Single Judge which has been set aside by Division Bench has to be refunded and/or returned by original writ petitioners which State is entitled to recover from them on principle of restitution – Even otherwise, no one can be permitted to take benefit of wrong order passed by court which has been subsequently set aside by higher forum/court – As per settled position of law, no party should be prejudiced because of order of court – Division Bench of High Court is absolutely justified in reserving liberty in favour of State to recover amount paid in excess to original writ petitioners – Even while reserving liberty to recover amount paid in excess, Division Bench has observed that same be recovered in easy equal installments. (Paras 6, 6.3, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1883/2014 and other connected appeals, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeals and has quashed and set aside the respective judgments and orders passed by Single Judge of the High Court and held that three years Nursing Course by the in-service candidates could not be treated as a period on deputation and be treated only on leave whatever due to the candidates and consequently has reserved the liberty in favour of the State to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners treating the period of training as a period of leave permissible to him/her in easy equal installments, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals. Only issue which is now required to be considered is, whether there shall be recovery of the amounts from original writ petitioners, as directed in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Findings of Court:
Division Bench of the High Court has not committed any error in reserving liberty in favour of the State to recover the amount paid in excess to the original writ petitioners. Whatever amount is paid in excess to original writ petitioners, pursuant to order passed by Single Judge, be recovered from original writ petitioners in thirty-six equal monthly installments, to be deducted from their salary commencing from April, 2022.
Result : Appeals disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1883/2014 and other connected appeals, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeals and has quashed and set aside the respective judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and held that the three years Nursing Course by the in-service candidates could not be treated as a period on deputation and be treated only on leave whatever due to the candidates and consequently has reserved the liberty in favour of the State to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners treating the period of training as a period of leave permissible to him/her in easy equal installments, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals.

2. That the original writ petitioners are working either as ANM (Auxiliary Nursing & Midwifery) or Lab Technician, Multi-Purpose Worker, Accounts Clerk or other similarly situated posts. They are the members of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965. They applied for the course of General Nursing Training which is of three years duration and is regulated according to the General Nursing Training Course Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1990').

2.1 That all the original writ petitioners submitted their applications, in the prescribed proforma as in-service candidates, seeking admission to the course of General Nursing as envisaged under Rule 9 of the Rules 1990. That all the in-service candidates were required to be considered eligible to seek admission provided they fulfilled the criterion for admission and eligibility under Rule 11 of the Rules 1990. All the original writ petitioners submitted their applications for seeking study leave knowing it fully well that joining three years Nursing Course cannot be treated on deputation for the in-service candidates. All the original writ petitioners completed their course or some of them were either doing their internship or a few, after completion of their internship, filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of the High Court and prayed that the study leave sanctioned to them by the competent authority may be treated as on deputation. That the learned Single Judge allowed the batch of writ petitions with the following directions:

"Looking to the aforesaid, these writ petitions are being disposed of with the following directions:

1. Respondents are directed to comply with the observations and expectations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as given in the case of Sushil Sharma (supra) [State of Rajasthan vs. Sushil Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 5283/2001, dated 10.08.2001], thereby, they will not allow benefit of deputation allowance to anyone in violation of rule 112 read with rule 97 of the RSR. This is irrespective of the categories of the post in the respondent department;

2. If there is shortage of Junior Specialist, endeavour should be to amend the Rules so that direct recruitment can be made, as presently aforesaid post is filled up by promotion only. However, on the pretext of shortage of Junior Specialist, respondents cannot be allowed to violate or circumvent the rules. This is more so when it goes even against the observations and expectations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sharma (supra). The respondents will accordingly allow study leave and benefit thereupon as per rule 111 and 112 read with rule 97 of the RSR;

3. Since for many posts, benefit of study leave with full salary has been allowed, hence, to avoid discrimination, respondents have agreed to extend similar benefit to the petitioners also, however, arrangement aforesaid would be limited to those who have already joined the training course of GNM and now onwards nobody would be allowed study leave benefit in violation