High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Govind Mathur
Rafiq - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5269 of 1992
Decided On : 09/09/2005
Compensatory Allowance - Recovery of Compensatory Allowance - The court quashed the order for recovery of compensatory allowance, stating that once the amount had been paid without misrepresentation and consumed by the petitioners, it was not required to be recovered.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were under training and received compensatory allowance, which was later sought to be recovered by the respondents. The petitioners challenged this recovery through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensatory allowance was paid to the petitioners without misrepresentation, and once consumed, it was not required to be recovered. The court quashed the recovery order and restrained the respondents from effecting any recovery from the petitioners' pay.
Issues: The issue revolved around the recovery of compensatory allowance paid to the petitioners during their training period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the compensatory allowance was paid without misrepresentation and consumed by the petitioners, it was not required to be recovered.
Final Decision: The court quashed the recovery order and restrained the respondents from effecting any recovery from the petitioners' pay against the compensatory allowance paid during the training period.
Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioners remained under training for Gram Sewak from 011.1987 to
011.1988. During the aforesaid period the respondents allowed compensatory allowance to the petitioners. Subsequently, the Local Funds Audit Department pointed out that the petitioner was not entitled for such compensatory allowances, accordingly, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bhinder District Udaipur passed order dated 09.04.1992 to effect recovery of the compensatory allowance paid to the petitioner while he was in training. A challenge is given by the petitioners to the order dated 09.04.1992 by filling the present writ petition.
2. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioners that the compensatory allowance was allowed by the respondents at their own and no misrepresentation was made by the petitioners to claim said allowance. Therefore, the respondents must not recover the said amount. It is also contended by Counsel for the petitioners that recovery from the pay is a punishment provided under the relevant disciplinary rules and, therefore, the same cannot be effected without giving an opportunity of hearing to the employees concerned.
3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that compensatory allowance was wrongly paid to the petitioners and, therefore, the same is required to be recovered.
4. Heard Counsel for the parties.
5. It is admitted position between the parties that during the period commencing from 011.1987 to 011.1988 the petitioner was under training and compensatory allowance was paid to them by the respondents and for that purpose no misrepresentation was made by the petitioners. Once this amount has been paid to the petitioners without any misrepresentation on their part and they have consumed the same then it is not required to be recovered. In view of it, the order Annexure-1 dated 09.04.1992 is hereby quashed. The respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery from pay of the petitioners against compensatory allowance paid to them during the period commencing from 011.1987 to 011.1988. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.