##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4608]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10014/2025

Santosh Bairwa Wife Of Shri Ramesh Bairwa, Aged About 40

Years, Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Government

Upper Primary School Latifganj, Panchyat Samiti And District

Tonk (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Additional Director, Rajasthan School Shiksha Parishad,

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shika Sankul,block No. 5, J.l.n.

Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Elementary

Education, Tonk (Ra.)

4. Chief Block Education Officer, Samagra Shiksha, Block

Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karanpal Singh

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

31/01/2026

1. Instant writ petition is preferred with the following prayer:

It is, therefore, requested that Your Lordship

would be pleased to accept and allow this writ

petition and by issuing an appropriate writ,

order or direction quashed and set aside the

order dated 26.12.2024 and the respondents

be directed to not made any recovery from the

salary of petitioner in the larger interest of

justice.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 03:44:28 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:08:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4608] (2 of 6) [CW-10014/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance

upon the judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs.

Rafiq Masih, MANU/SC/1195/2014 = (2015) 4 SCC

334 and Jogeshwar Sahu vs. District Judge, Cuttack,

reported as 2025 INSC 449, submitted that the petitioner

is serving as Assistant Teacher under the Rajasthan

Contractual Hiring to Civil Services Posts Rules, 2022

(hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2022”) and vide orders

dated 12.07.2023 and 12.08.2024, the salary of the

petitioner was sanctioned as ₹51,600/-.

3. He further submitted that the respondent department has

issued a letter dated 26.12.2024 for withdrawal of salary

granted to her along with recovery of amount already paid.

He further submitted that the order of recovery was issued

without providing any opportunity of hearing and inquiry. He

submitted that the petitioner belongs to Group ‘C’ and

recovery from her cannot be effected, against law.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for

the respondents, and submitted that the petitioner is not

eligible to get the benefits as per the Rules, but erroneously

the same were granted to the petitioner. He further

submitted that the petitioner was paid excess amount and

the same is liable to be recovered. He also placed reliance

upon the reply and documents filed on record.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material placed on record. Also perused the judgment as

referred by learned counsel for petitioner.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 03:44:28 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:08:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4608] (3 of 6) [CW-10014/2025]

6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

working as Education Assistant from 08.01.1996, but after

the policy decision of the Government to absorb contractual

employees such as Junior Teacher, Teaching Assistant,

Assistant Teacher, etc. under the Rules of 2022, the

petitioner was absorbed under the Rules of 2022. As per

policy, the pay is required to be fixed in accordance with

guidelines issued by respondents. The petitioner was fixed

on consolidated pay of ₹51,600/- pursuant to circular dated

23.02.2023 issued by the Finance Department and others.

7. After some time, a letter dated 26.12.2024 was issued with

clarification that absorbed employees are entitled to

consolidated monthly remuneration of ₹16,900/- per month,

and not as interpreted by one of respondent (controlling

officer). The petitioner has challenged the order of recovery

pursuant to order dated 26.12.2024.

8. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a limited

purpose, to challenge the issue of recovery from the salary

o