IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Radhey Shyam Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1142 of 2005
Decided On : 23-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to quash prior order and clarify pay scale. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against salary recovery and service regularization. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents challenge legality of pay scale and service regularization. (Para 5) |
| 4. court assesses facts and clarifies no error in regularization process. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. recovery of benefits received without fault violates natural justice. (Para 8) |
| 6. writ petition approved; recovery order quashed and refund directed. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
i. to issue any order or direction or writ of any nature for quashing order/letter dated 25.05.2002(Annexure-1);
ii. to issue any order or direction or writ of any nature directing the non-petitioners to pay higher pay scale on completing 9, 8 and 27 years of services w.e.f. date of initial appointment i.e. 03.03.1990;
iii. to issue any order or direction or writ of any nature restraining the non-petitioner's from which helding payment of annual grade increment and to recover any amount from the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 25.05.2002.
iv. or any order or direction as deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of watchman/class-IV employee on daily wages. Thereafter, his service was terminated by the respondents. Against such action of the respondents, the petitioner approached to this Court by way of filling S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2389/1991 and the same was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 04.12.1991 by observing thus:-
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents granted regular pay to the petitioner w.e.f 15.04.1991 and thereafter, grade increments were also given to him w.e.f. 15.04.1991. Counsel submits that all of a sudden, respondents passed the impugned order on 25.05.2002 and the decision was taken to recover the amount and benefits given to the petitioner w.e.f. 15.04.1991 on the pretext that the service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 15.08.1996, hence the petitioner is not entitled to get the above benefits. Counsel submits that it is settled proposition of law that if any amount is received by the employee without any fault of his own and if the amount is ordered to be recovered by the Department, then the same amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. Counsel submits that the amount which has been received by the petitioner between 15.04.1991 till 15.08.1996 cannot be allowed to be recovered.
4. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Cou
The court established that the petitioners were entitled to the higher pay scale as per the Government Resolutions and that the recovery initiated by the respondents was unjust, illegal, and arbitrar....
Recovery cannot be initiated beyond the period of five years from the allegedly offending event.
Recovery of excess payment from employees must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be made after an unreasonable delay, especially for Class-3 employees.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the impermissibility of recovery in certain situations, such as from retired employees and employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service....
Once a judicial order regarding service benefits and pay fixation attains finality, the state is bound to implement it in its entirety. Authorities cannot circumvent such mandates through internal de....
When the appellant Board has given the benefit of first higher grade scale to some of the petitioners, at that juncture, such contention was not raised and at the time of granting the second higher g....
The court held that actions with civil consequences must follow principles of natural justice, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.
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.