1. Writ petition seeking quashing of order recovering amount from husband's gratuity and refund; issue settled by precedent. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Mamta Devi W/o Govind Dhamani – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26895 of 2018
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Important Points
A writ petition may be disposed of by directing the relevant authority to decide a representation in accordance with the ratio of a judgment delivered by a coordinate bench of the same court on an identical issue.
Subject
Service Law - Gratuity and Recoveries
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Recovery from Gratuity - Petitioner sought quashing of recovery order and refund of amount recovered from the gratuity of the spouse - Matter involves application of established legal principles regarding recoveries from retirement benefits. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Disposal based on Precedent - Where the issue raised in a writ petition is already settled by a coordinate bench of the same court, the petition can be disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to submit a representation, with a direction to the authorities to decide the same in light of the ratio laid down in the precedent. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed seeking quashing of an order regarding recovery from the gratuity of the petitioner's husband and the refund of the recovered amount. The petitioner relied on a judgment delivered by a coordinate bench of the court in a similar case, arguing that the issue was already settled.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation within 30 days and the respondent authority to decide the said representation within 30 days of receipt. The decision must be based on the ratio of the cited precedent, and if the ratio applies to the facts of the case, the benefits must be extended to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the recovery from gratuity should be refunded based on the ratio of a previously decided case by a coordinate bench.
Ratio Decidendi: In instances where a coordinate bench has already settled a legal issue, the court may direct the administrative authority to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with the established ratio.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed of.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Disposal based on Precedent - Where the issue raised in a writ petition is already settled by a coordinate bench of the same court, the petition can be disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to submit a representation, with a direction to the authorities to decide the same in light of the ratio laid down in the precedent. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed seeking quashing of an order regarding recovery from the gratuity of the petitioner's husband and the refund of the recovered amount. The petitioner relied on a judgment delivered by a coordinate bench of the court in a similar case, arguing that the issue was already settled.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation within 30 days and the respondent authority to decide the said representation within 30 days of receipt. The decision must be based on the ratio of the cited precedent, and if the ratio applies to the facts of the case, the benefits must be extended to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the recovery from gratuity should be refunded based on the ratio of a previously decided case by a coordinate bench.
Ratio Decidendi: In instances where a coordinate bench has already settled a legal issue, the court may direct the administrative authority to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with the established ratio.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Raj Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Prateek Saxena, Tarun Dhankhar, Kapil Prakash Mathur
For the Appellant : Raj Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Prateek Saxena, Tarun Dhankhar, Kapil Prakash Mathur
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued controversy settled by coordinate bench judgment; urged disposal in accordance with that decision. (Para 2 )
3. Court considered submissions and record; found grievance may be addressed through representation decided in light of cited precedent. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Where settled precedent applies, authorities must decide representation per ratio, with reasoned order in case of deviation. (Para 4 )
5. Petition disposed; liberty to file representation within 30 days; authority to decide within 30 days, communicate order; fresh petition allowed if aggrieved. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. Should a writ petition be disposed of in accordance with a coordinate bench precedent when the controversy is settled?
Yes, where a coordinate bench has settled the issue, the court may dispose of the petition and direct the respondent to decide a representation in light of that precedent. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
7. What is the procedure when a representation is filed after a writ petition disposed of in light of a precedent?
The respondent must decide the representation within 30 days, following the ratio of the precedent, and if deviating, must provide a reasoned and speaking order. (Para 4 )
8. Is the petitioner required to be informed of the decision on a representation?
Yes, the authority is obligated to communicate the order to the petitioner by speed post or email, and the petitioner may file a fresh petition if aggrieved. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and call for the entire record relating to the case and after examine the same:
i) By an appropriate writ order and direction of mandamus or in the nature thereof thereby the impugned order/letter dated 1.9.2015 sent by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) By an appropriate writ order and direction in the nature thereof thereby the respondents may kindly be directed to refund amount of Rs. 2,89,320/- recovered by the respondents from gratuity amount of husband of the petitioner with interest.
iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be given in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring and relying upon judgment dated 09.11.2016 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20857/2013 titled as Prabhu Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. submits that the controversy and the issue raised herein is already settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. He further submitted that instant writ petition be disposed of in accordance with aforesaid order.
3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and also material placed on record, the writ petition may be disposed in light of Prabhu Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra).
4. Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioner is given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents-Authority within a period of 30 days raising all grounds and the respondents-Authority are directed to decide the representation in light of ratio laid down in case of Prabhu Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra), but in case of deviation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation. After the decision, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the order to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in her representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, she has a liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition.
5. Needless to say that if ratio is applicable upon facts of the case as claimed by the petitioner, then same benefits be extended to the petitioner.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
