IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Dr. Rajni Lakhotia W/o Dr. Manoj Lakhotia - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16936 of 2021
Decided On : 15-03-2022
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Power of High Court to issue certain writs - Grant full gratuity amount – Held, It is ex-facie clear that PMO issued show cause notice to petitioner as to why amount be not recovered from her - Petitioner filed her response (Annex.4), whereafter, further details were sought from petitioner which along with reply were forwarded to Principal - Whereafter, somehow (as the aspect has not been cleared) matter came to be referred to committee consisting of Addl - Principal – Court and Senior Professor, Principal Medical Officer and Accounts Officer, which committee, it appears, came to conclusion that payment of HRA was justified, however, Financial Advisor of College required that direction in this regard be obtained from Finance Department - Based on which a communication dated (Annex.R/1) was addressed to Addl. Director by Principal inter alia requiring as under – Order accordingly
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against withholding of her retiral benefits by the respondents and a direction to grant full gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and earned leave of Rs.69,307/- along with interest till the date of realization.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer in the year 1987 and on the date of her superannuation on 31/1/2022 she was posted as General Specialist (Surgery) at District Hospital, Paota, Jodhpur.
3. On 5/2/2021, the Deputy Secretary of the Medical & Health Department issued a certificate regarding non-pendency of any departmental inquiry. On 23/3/2021, the petitioner received a notice from Principal Medical Officer, District Hospital, Paota, Jodhpur (‘the PMO’) inter alia with reference to a complaint dated 1/12/2020 indicating that though her husband was allotted Government accommodation and she was staying in the said Govt. accommodation, she has availed the benefit of House Rent Allowance from 18/12/2003 to 31/1/2021 and, therefore, why not a sum of Rs.20,69,307/- be recovered from her gratuity/commutation/pension and in case she wants to deposit the same she was called upon to give her response within a period of 05 days and in case no response was given the same would be recovered ex-parte.
4. The petitioner filed her response on 6/4/2021 contesting the contents of the notice and asserted that the amount could not be recovered from her. On 8/4/2021, the PMO required further information from the petitioner for which the petitioner once sought time.
5. Whereafter, it appears that the matter somehow came to be referred to a committee of Dr. S.N.Medical College, Jodhpur, which sought further information from the petitioner on 23/6/2021 (Annex.9) to which the petitioner responded on 5/7/2021 (Annex.10), which committee submitted its report on which the Financial Advisor of the College gave his comments inter alia indicating that as the provisions for payment of HRA were not clear, on the said aspect it would be appropriate that directions be sought from the Finance Department, Jaipur, based on which on 30/8/2021 the Principal & Controller, Dr. S.N.Medical College, Jodhpur (‘the Principal’) forwarded the matter to Addl. Director (Administration), Jaipur and a copy whereof was marked to the PMO.
6. On 20/8/2021, the PMO passed an office order inter alia indicating that as the matter has been sent by the Principal to the State Government for directions, permission is granted for withholding the amount of Rs.20 lakhs from the gratuity and Rs.69,307/- from the encashment of earned leave of the petitioner.
7. On 2/11/2021 the Addl. Director (Administration), Jaipur required the Principal to recover the amount of HRA from the petitioner observing that the HRA was not payable. The said communication dated 2/11/2021 (Annex.12) was forwarded by the Principal to PMO requiring him to recover the amount immediately. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
8. When the matter came up for admission before the Court on 6/12/2021, copy of the petition was ordered to be served on learned AAG, who was required to complete his instructions, the petitioner filed additional affidavit relying on the order dated 14/6/2017 of the State Govt. (Annex.14), wherein, the State had withdrawn its earlier order dated 30/1/2017 restricting the payment of HRA to only one employee where both husband and wife being Govt. employees were living in the same accommodation.
9. A reply to the petition was filed by the respondents, seeking to justify the order of recovery inter alia based on the ground that petitioner and her husband were sharing the same Govt. accommodation allotted to her husband.
10. The matter thereafter remained pending, wherein, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondents, which was countered by the petitioner and, thereafter another additi
Recovery of overpayment or reduction of pay from a retired government servant without providing a prior show-cause notice violates the principles of natural justice, as such actions result in adverse....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the protection of pension and gratuity rights of re....
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible when no fault or misrepresentation is established on their part.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that recovery of government dues from a retiring government servant must be based on proper documentation and should adhere to the principles outli....
Recovery of embezzled amounts from an employee without departmental inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and the right to pension is protected as property under Article 300A.
The recovery order and withholding of retiral dues without proper procedure and opportunity for the petitioner to be heard were illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioner was entitled to interest on t....
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.