Rajasthan HC Imposes ₹50,000 Cost on Officer for Contemptuous Pension Recovery Orders: Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma vs State of Rajasthan - 2026-04-28

Defying the Bench: Rajasthan HC Holds Official Accountable for Illegal Pension Recovery Orders

In a stern message against bureaucratic overreach, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has excoriated a senior government official for issuing recovery orders against the salary and pension of retired medical officers despite clear directives from both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Backdrop: A Legal Tug-of-War

The case, Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan , concerns the persistent efforts by the Ayurved Department to recover pension benefits from retired employees, a move that the petitioners successfully challenged in previous rounds of litigation. The petitioner, a 66-year-old retired doctor, found himself in a familiar battle when the Director of the Ayurved Department issued an administrative order on March 24, 2026, mandating the recovery of "excess" payments from pension accounts.

This move occurred despite a previous High Court order dated April 17, 2023, which allowed the petitioner's claim, and a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court in an identical matter. The Apex Court had explicitly issued notice and granted a stay, directing that no recovery should be made from the respondents during the pendency of the petition.

Challenging Administrative Hubris

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was not only in violation of the principle of finality—given that the previous High Court order had not been further appealed—but also in direct defiance of the Supreme Court’s stay order.

The respondent official, Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma, Director of the Ayurved Department, initially attempted to justify the recovery actions during court proceedings. However, the High Court found these justifications "highly unsatisfactory and unjustified." By the time the matter came to a head, the department had already withdrawn the contentious order on April 13, 2026, though the damage caused by the official's conduct remained a point of judicial contention.

The Court’s Reasoning

Hon'ble Justice Ravi Chirania observed that the actions of the concerned officer showed a blatant disregard for judicial authority. Despite being aware that the issue had been adjudicated and was currently sub judice before the Supreme Court, the official chose to treat himself as being "above law."

Justice Chirania remarked that while the withdrawal of the impugned order resolved the immediate grievance, the act of issuance itself remained "not only illegal but contemptuous."

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling highlighted the necessity of institutional respect for court mandates: * "This Court finds that the action of the respondent-Officer is serious and contemptuous, who appeared before this Court and tried to justify his conduct which is highly unsatisfactory and unjustified." * "Despite the adjudication of the issue, the concerned Officer treated himself to be above law and issued the impugned order." * "Once the Department has challenged the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and even the Apex Court restrained them from making any recovery, then their action of issuing the order dated 24.03.2026 is also in contempt of the order dated 16.02.2026."

Final Verdict: A Personal Penalty

In a move intended to prevent such administrative overreach in the future, the court did not merely slap the department on the wrist. Instead, it ordered a cost of ₹50,000 to be recovered personally from the salary of Dr. Anand Kumar Sharma. This sum is to be deposited with the Bar Association to support the welfare of advocates.

The court further directed that proof of this deposit be filed within twenty days. By making the official personally liable, the High Court has reaffirmed that constitutional duty and respect for the judiciary are not mere suggestions for public servants, but requirements of their office. The matter is set for further hearing on May 20, 2026, to ensure full compliance with these directives.