Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2055
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHA, J.
Prof. Dr. Reena Dadhich D/o. R.D. Dadhich - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18076, 17953, 17446 of 2012
Decided on : 04-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Choudhary Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Madhav Dadhich Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Advocate. Mr. Chinmay Saxena Advocate Mr. S.S. Naruka AAG.
The court emphasized that recovery of salary overpayments requires adherence to principles of natural justice and cannot be executed arbitrarily without affording individuals a fair opportunity to defend against such claims.
Headnote:(A) All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010 - Order dated 15.10.2012 modifying pay band of college faculty - Determination of pay fixation made in accordance with governing regulations, and principle of legitimate expectation highlighted - Respondents failed to follow process of audi alteram partem or provide reasons for differential treatment - Recovery of excess payments ordered via impugned directive deemed arbitrary. (Paras 10, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23)
(B) Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - Retrospective recovery of salary without opportunity to be heard is inequitable - Right to fair treatment recognized under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 18, 19, 21)
(C) Discrimination in pay fixation - Selective enforcement of pay directives against similarly situated employees without justification deemed unconstitutional. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, faculty members of an AICTE-approved institution, challenged the legality of the order refixing their salaries to a lower pay band with a recovery directive for alleged excess payments. The College had previously awarded them salaries based on the AICTE scales, leading to a legitimate expectation of continued payment under those terms.
Findings of Court:
Writ petitions allowed; the impugned order regarding refixation of pay and recovery were quashed. The petitioners were entitled to PB-4/AGP 9,000 per AICTE regulations; refunds ordered for any amounts already recovered.
Issues: Whether AICTE Regulations apply, and whether the respondents violated principles of natural justice in salary recovery actions.
Ratio Decidendi: AICTE regulations prevailed for technical institutions, and failure to afford an opportunity to contest the pay reduction and recoveries violated fundamental fairness principles.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; ordered substantive reliefs concerning pay and recovery.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of pay fixation and petition details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding pay entitlements and recovery (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis of statutory frameworks and principles (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. reference to precedent case laws supporting the petitioners (Para 22) |
| 5. final judgment and orders issued to the respondents (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
Judgment :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. All the aforesaid writ petitions involve similar facts and points for consideration, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this Common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18076/2012 Prof. Dr. Reena Dadhich v/s State of Rajasthan & Others, are being taken into consideration.
2. The petitioners have challenged legality and validity of order dated 15.10.2012 by which the Respondents caused the petitioners' pay to be re-fixed in a lower pay band (PB-3 with AGP Rs. 8,000) and directed recovery of the alleged excess amounts paid to them. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned order as well as directions for restraining recovery of alleged excess amount. So far as petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18076/2012 is concerned, she has also made an additional prayer for releasing of withheld arrears of Sixth Pay Commission and leave encashment, refund of any amounts already recovered with interest, and consequential reliefs.
3. It is stated that Engineering College, Ajmer (the “College”) is an AICTE-approved technical institution affiliated to Rajasthan University. The College holds recurring AICTE approvals for academic years. The petitioners were selected on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and appointed as Reader (Associate Professor) on different dates on sanctioned posts on probation. Their appointment letters shows their placement in pre-revision scale of Rs.12,000-18,300.
4. It has been submitted that the College’s Executive Council recognised scarcity of senior faculty. In its meeting dated 29.02.2008, it resolved to attract senior faculty by allowing Readers/Associate Professors to draw the regular scale with DA and other allowances at joining. Pursuant thereto, the College passed an internal order dated 22.08.2009 implementing the Executive Council’s decision.
5. Vide Notification dated 05.03.2010, published on 13.03.2010, AICTE notified “The All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010)” (hereafter to be referred as “AICTE Regulations, 2010”), which, inter alia, prescribe that directly recruited Associate Professors shall be paid their salary in Pay Band PB-4 (Rs.37,400-67,000) with AGP ₹9,000.
6. The State Government, by order dated 12.05.2010, adopted the AICTE recommendations for implementation in Rajasthan and expressly stated that financial liability arising from revision would be borne by the concerned institution/society and not by the State. The effective date was fixed as 01.01.2006 for the purpose of increments/arrears as per the scheme.
7. Consequent upon the State’s order, the College issued an office order dated 17.07.2010 placing Readers/Associate Professors, including the petitioner, in PB-4 with AGP Rs.9,000 and sanctioned pay increments and arrears accordingly. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 18076/2012 stated additional facts that she resigned from the College and her resignation was accepted on 08.08.2012. Thereafter, she was appointed as Professor (Computer Science) in University of Kota vide order dated 25.07.2012. After leaving service, she sought clearance of arrears under Sixth Pay Commission and leave encashment by representation dated 12.09.2012 and, by application filed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, sought details of arrears. The College replied on 17.10.2012 with particul
