Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Smt Shashi Sharma vs State Of Raj And Ors (2025:Rj-Jp:14414) on 28 March, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:14414]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8945/2011
Smt Shashi Sharma daughter of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma wife of
Shri Ayodhya Prasad Sharma, aged about 63 years, resident of
R-246, Behind Museum, Kila, Bharatpur (Raj.), retired fromt he
post of Senior Teacher, Government Girls Middle School, Kumher
Gate, Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Raj. through the Secretary, Education
Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. C. Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for
Mr. G. K. Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
28/03/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide
Annexure-3 dated 12.06.2000, recovery was made through
challan from the date of initial appointment i.e. 01.11.1964 for a
sum of Rs. 21,692/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred
Ninety Two Only) and neither any show cause notice or
opportunity of hearing was granted nor the mandate of the settled
position of law was followed. Learned counsel has relied upon the
judgment encapsulated in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
Further, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is
(Downloaded on 04/04/2025 at 12:41:03 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14414] (2 of 4) [CW-8945/2011]
entitled for selection pay scale in light of the respondents’
clarification.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has stoutly opposed the
contentions noted herein above, on the ground that reliance
placed upon the document by the petitioner for grant of selection
scale i.e. order dated 12.04.2002 was withdrawn by the Finance
Department and the fact is not disclosed by the petitioner or may
be she is unaware qua the same. It is further submitted that the
impugned recovery as stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner being against the settled position of law is not true
nevertheless, as on date the same cannot be refunded as in terms
of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Narain, it can be deduced that
the ad-hoc or temporary service is not to be counted for giving
benefits of selection scale.
3. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, scanned the record available on record
and considered the judgments cited at Bar.
4. Upon considering the aforementioned contentions the
following facts are noteworthy:-
4.1 That the petitioner is approximately 86 years old aged
woman.
4.2 That the petition was filed in the year 2011, no affidavit as
per directions of the Court was filed and therefore vide order
dated 28.02.2025, for the delay, a cost was imposed which was
paid by concerned Officer In-charge, in his personal capacity.
5. At this juncture, this Court clarifies that the delay and
prejudiced so caused to the petitioner, is duly compensated and
(Downloaded on 04/04/2025 at 12:41:03 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14414] (3 of 4) [CW-8945/2011]upon the concerned Officer In-charge as a cost has also been
levied. Therefore, it is made clear that no prejudice has to be
caused to the Officer In-charge, as he is released from the burden
which was to be paid to the petitioner.
6. Withal, in light of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can be
further deduced that where ever there are low paid employees,
after a lapse of considerable period, for reasons which were not
attributed to the petitioner/employee, no recovery can take place.
it is also noteworthy that the said fact is also not refuted by the
respondents. For the sake of handiness the relevant extract from
the afore-relied judgment is reproduced herein below:
“It is not possible to postulate all situations of
hardship, which would govern employees on the
issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly
been made by the employer, in excess of their
entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the
decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a
ready reference, summarise the following few
situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-
III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group
‘D’ service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or
employees who are due to retire within one year,
of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in excess of
five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
(Downloaded on 04/04/2025 at 12:41:03 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:14414] (4 of 4) [CW-8945/2011]
higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at
the conclusion, that recovery if made from the
employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or
arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh
the equitable balance of the employer’s right to
recover.”
7. In light of the above, recovery made by Annexure-3 dated
12.06.2000 for the sum of Rs. 21,692/- (Rupees Twenty One
Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Two Only) be paid back to the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of passing
of this judgment, along with an interest of 6% per annum.
8. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Order dated
12.06.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Pending
application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja/8
(Downloaded on 04/04/2025 at 12:41:03 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link