Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, JJ.
RAM KISHORE GURJAR — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent
Writ Restoration Application No. 798 of 2017
Decided on : 20-03-2018
Praveen Sharma, Advocates
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of merit in the appeal and the appellant's responsibility for the overpayment.
Headnote:
Restoration Application - Non-prosecution of Appeal - Excess Payment Dispute - Withholding of Payment - Merits of the Appeal
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought restoration of a writ-appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal challenged an interim order regarding excess payment and withholding of payment by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court chose to look into the merits of the appeal rather than the non-prosecution. It found that the appellant had been paid money in excess, and the respondents were entitled to withhold payment. The appellant's plea was that he was not responsible for the overpayment.
Issues: The issues involved the dispute over excess payment, withholding of payment, and the appellant's responsibility for the overpayment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court focused on the fact that the appellant was prosecuting an appeal with no merit, and therefore dismissed the restoration application.
Final Decision: The restoration application was dismissed by the court.
1. D.B.Civil Misc. Application No.159/2018 :
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The application is allowed.
D.B.Civil Restoration Application No.798/2017 :
By the above captioned application for restoration the appellant desires restoration of D.B.Civil Restoration Application No.487/2016 which in turn sought restoration of the writ-appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Rather than to deal with the facts of the non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant, we have preferred to look into the merits of the appeal itself.
3. Challenge in the appeal is to an interim order dated 25.07.2015, noting that the appellant sought voluntary retirement and request being accepted dues were computed to be paid to the appellant. Part dues were paid. At that stage it was found that Rs.3,03,534/- had been paid in excess. Rs. 1,14,972/- was payable to the appellant on account of State Insurance. That amount was withheld. The appellant questioned the withholding of said amount. Impugned order records that Counsel for the appellant was granted time to obtain instructions whether the excess payment was agreed to be paid by the appellant in installments.
Thereafter, Counsel for the appellant started seeking adjournments before the learned Single Judge. It not being dispute before the learned Single Judge that the appellant had been paid money in excess, the learned Single Judge held that the respondents was thus entitled to withhold payment of Rs. 1,14,972/-.
4. The only plea taken by the appellant was that he was not responsible for the over payment.
5. It is not a case of a simple recovery of an amount overpaid. It is a case where some further amount was payable to the appellant and the respondents is adjusting the same against the overpaid payment.
6. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is prosecuting an appeal which has no merit, we are not inclined to allow the above-captioned application which is hereby dismissed.
