Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Sharad Maheshwari Anr vs State Education Departmentanr on 4 September, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:35146]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18076/2012
Prof. Dr. Reena Dadhich D/o. R.D. Dadhich, aged about 35 years,
R/o 402, Fourth Floor, Guru Nanak Estate, Station Road, Kota,
District Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of
Technical Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Department of Technical Education,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Engineering College, Ajmer through its Registrar, Jaipur
Beawar Highway NH-8, Barliya Circle, Ajmer-305001, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
Connected With (2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17953/2012
1. Jitenra Kumar Deegwal S/o. Shri Sedu Ram aged 37 years, R/o 22/27/2, Swaran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Ankur Pareek S/o Shri Pradeep Pareek aged 39 years. R/o. 22/39, Gulmohar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Hari Shankar Mewara S/o. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Mewara, aged 39 years, R/o. A-105, M.D. Colony, Naka Madar, Ajmer (Raj.)
4. Indira Rawat W/o. Shri Anoop Kumar Sharma, aged 42 years, R/o. 6/239, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Alok Khatri S/o. Late Shri K.L. Khatri, aged 37 years, R/o. D- 25, Chandervardai Nagar, Ajmer.
6. Jinesh Kumar Jain S/o. Shri D.P. Jain, aged 36 years, R/o. 37, J.P. Nagar, Near Adarsh Vidya Niketan School, Madar Road, Ajmer (Raj.)
7. Krishan Gopal Sharma S/o. Sh. Madan Lal Sharma aged 35 years, R/o 97, H.B. Nagar, Naka Madar, Ajmer (Raj.)
8. Dr. Radha Kihan Motwani S/o. Shri M.D. Motwani aged 36 years, R/o. 6, Dhuru Bhawan, Vivekanand Colony, Ajay Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)
9. Rekha Mehra W/o. Shri Dharmendra Mehra aged 45 years, R/o. 3, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)
10. Dr. Uma Shankar Modani D/o. Shri Tej Karan Modani aged 41 years, R/o 629-A, Krishna Vihar Colony, B.K. Kaul Nagar, (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (2 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] Ajmer (Raj.)
11. Yogesh Kumar Gupta S/o. Late Shri R.C. Gupta aged 49 years, R/o 167-A, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Engineering College, Ajmer through its Registrar, Jaipur Beawar Highway NH-8, Barliya Circle, Ajmer-305001, Rajasthan.
----Respondent (3) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17446/2012
1. Dr. Sharad Maheshwari S/o. Late B.L. Gupta, aged about 43 years, R/o. B-15, Anand Vihar, Jhalawar.
2. Nemi Chand Singh S/o. Shri Narain Sigh, aged about 50 years, R/o. C-1, Anand Vihar, Civil Lines, Kashi Road, Jhalawar.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Engineering College Society, Jhalawar represented through Principal, Government Engineering College, Jhalawar.
----Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Choudhary Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Madhav Dadhich Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Advocate.
Mr. Chinmay Saxena Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.S. Naruka AAG.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:35146] (3 of 14) [CW-17953/2012]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
RESERVED ON :: 22.08.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 04.09.2025
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 (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (4 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] 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 (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (5 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] 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 particulars of arrears and leaves.
8. Meanwhile, the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, received complaints regarding alleged "wrong pay fixation" in Government-aided autonomous engineering colleges and issued directions on 08.10.2012 that pay fixation should conform to the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) letter dated 26.08.2010 and the State order dated 10.01.2011, and that any overpayments ought to be recovered immediately. Acting on this, the Department of Technical Education issued impugned direction/order dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure-13) refixing pay of Readers (appointed on relevant dates) at PB-3 with AGP Rs. 8,000 (as per UGC/MHRD prescription for Readers appointed post-01.01.2006), and directed for recovery of alleged excess payments.
9. In consequence, the College initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioners in all the above petitions and, according to the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 18076/2012, the College sought to set off/adjust the petitioner's legitimate claims for Sixth Pay Commission arrears and leave encashment against the alleged overpayments. Whereas, the (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (6 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] College is said to have already paid arrears to some similarly- situated Readers/Associate Professors but not to the petitioners.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the AICTE Regulations, 2010, together with the State's order dated 12.05.2010 and the College's order dated 17.07.2010, created a legitimate and enforceable expectation that they would be paid salary in PB-4/AGP Rs. 9,000; and that the Respondents' action of passing order dated 15.10.2012 was mechanical, taken without application of mind or opportunity of hearing and contrary to the AICTE rules and is, therefore, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 as well as principles of natural justice.
11. Respondents filed reply to the writ petition and contended that AICTE Regulations did not preserve the nomenclature "Reader" (pre-existing nomenclature); and the UGC/MHRD communications as well as the State order of 10.01.2011 clarified pay fixation for Readers/Lecturer (selection grade) and fixed the entry pay of a Reader appointed on or after 01.01.2006 at Rs. 23,890 (PB-3 with AGP Rs. 8,000) until such time as the incumbents completed three years and became eligible for PB-4 with AGP Rs.9,000. The respondents assert that certain appointments and payments were not in conformity with that position, and therefore recovery was ordered. The respondents further contend that order dated 15.10.2012 merely clarified an error in implementation and recouped excess payments.
12. The respondents also placed on record AICTE letters and earlier pay-scale histories and stressed that "Reader" as (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (7 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] nomenclature was transitional and the State's subsequent correction under 15.10.2012 was to align pay fixation uniformly with UGC/MHRD guidance. The respondents contended that the College's records showed excess payment to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation made earlier and therefore, recovery was warranted under the circumstances.
13. In the light of above rival pleadings, core questions for determination are, (i) As to whether AICTE Regulations, 2010 are applicable upon to the petitioners and their colleges so as to entitle the petitioners to PB-4/AGP Rs.9,000 for the relevant period; (ii) As to whether the respondents were justified in adopting UGC/MHRD communications and to issue consequent orders for refixation and recovery vis-à-vis AICTE-governed institutions, and (iii) As to whether the impugned action of issuance of order dated 15.10.2012 (and consequent recovery steps) were without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing or not, and if yes, then whether it was in violation of principles of audi alteram partem.
14. As a matter of fact, AICTE is the statutory apex body entrusted by the Central Government with planning and maintenance of standards in technical education. AICTE Regulations, 2010 were promulgated after publication in the official Gazette and they prescribe pay bands and AGP for cadres in technical institutions. Clause-VIII of AICTE Regulations, 2010 expressly provides that Associate Professors (direct recruitment) shall be placed in PB-4 (Rs.37,400-67,000) with AGP Rs.9,000 and such provisions deal with incumbents from the date on which such benefits would be operative whereas, the UGC Regulations, 2010 (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (8 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] regulate universities and colleges under UGC purview; and crucially, the UGC Regulations themselves provide in the coverage clause that for Engineering & Technology, the norms/regulations formulated in consultation with AICTE shall apply. Thus, as a matter of statutory and regulatory design, AICTE's regime is the primary source for technical institutions.
15. The MHRD/UGC communications (letters dated 26.08.2010 and earlier letters) dealt with pay fixation in Universities / Central Universities and set out a three tier nomenclature (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor) and certain entry pay figures for Readers/Lecturers, who fall under the UGC regime. These communications were not intended to displace AICTE Regulations for AICTE-governed technical institutions; where UGC and AICTE both speak to overlapping domains, however, the specific statute/regulator for technical education (AICTE) prevails in respect of engineering colleges. It is evident from the record that the State Government's adoption order of 12.05.2010 implemented AICTE recommendations in the State and made clear that the financial liability on account of revision would be borne by the concerned institutions. This Order is the operative instrument by which AICTE's scales were given effect in Rajasthan technical institutions. Record also reveals that the College's Executive Council resolution of 29.02.2008 and order of 22.08.2009 (Annexures 3 & 4) demonstrate a conscious institutional policy to attract senior faculty by placing Readers / Associate Professors on regular scale at joining. The College's order dated 17.07.2010 (Annexure-7) applied the AICTE / State revised scales to Readers, and the petitioners were paid in (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (9 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] PB-4/AGP Rs. 9,000 while in employment. These contemporaneous acts generated a legitimate expectation that the petitioners would be granted that pay band and would receive accompanying monetary benefits. Obviously, such expectation was indeed reasonable in view of AICTE Regulations and the State order.
16. It is settled law that principles of legitimate expectation and estoppel are engaged where public authorities adopt a course of conduct or issue orders upon which citizens rely, but however, subsequent action of the State results to their detriment, if later retraction is arbitrary. The State's later attempt to repudiate the earlier implementation, without cogent legal foundation or reasoned exercise of discretion apparently offends settled administrative law principles. Further, the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 manifestly effected retrospective refixation and directed for recovery. The record establishes that no prior notice was given to the petitioners, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded. The petitioners could learn about the departmental action only upon receipt of the communication by the college with threat of recovery. The doctrine of audi alteram partem is an integral facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and applies to administrative actions that affect vested pecuniary or proprietary rights of individuals. Recovery of alleged overpayments, particularly where the employee was not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation is an action with severe consequences and requires at minimum an opportunity to be heard.
17. It reveals from the petitions that the College has paid arrears to some similarly situated Readers/Associate Professors, (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (10 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] but withheld payment to the petitioners and sought to set off alleged overpayments against Petitioner's legitimate claims (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 18076/2012), which is obviously a desparate and inconsistent treatment. Discrimination by a State authority occurs where persons similarly placed are treated differently without any intelligible differential justification. The duty to act fairly and uniformly in pay fixation, especially where regulatory directions were common to all, is imperative and selective victimisation of the petitioner suggests arbitrariness on the part of respondents. It is also clear that the contest is not over the existence of AICTE or UGC rules; yet it is over which regulatory prescription governs the petitioners' pay and whether the respondents correctly applied those rules. On meticulous examination of documents on record, viz., appointment order, Executive Council minutes, College orders, AICTE Regulations, State Government's order of 12.05.2010, Finance / MHRD communications, RTI correspondences, and State direction/Order dated 15.10.2012), would clearly suggest that the AICTE regulations would prevail in the case of the petitioners.
18. It also reveals from the record that the petitioners were appointed as Reader on 01.03.2008 and placed in PB-4/AGP Rs. 9,000, pursuant to the order passed by the College following the State Government's order adopting AICTE scales. The respondents' case that Readers should be treated as PB-3/AGP Rs.8,000 is based upon UGC/MHRD letters and a later clarification by the State Government; yet the UGC Regulations themselves contemplate AICTE norms for engineering and technology. This Court finds that AICTE Regulations, 2010 are applicable to the (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (11 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] petitioners' institution and that the State Government's order dated 12.05.2010 was validly implemented in the State. The AICTE prescription placing Associate Professors in PB-4 with AGP Rs. 9,000 is, therefore, the appropriate regulatory standard for the College and the petitioner. The UGC/MHRD communications cannot be read down to displace AICTE's specific norms for engineering institutions because (i) the UGC instrument itself refers to AICTE for engineering and technology; and (ii) the State's own earlier order implemented AICTE's recommendation for technical institutions. When two regulatory instruments exist, the one specially tailored to the sector (AICTE for technical education) controls over broader instruments (UGC), unless a State order validly and expressly provides otherwise with reasoned articulation. No such cogent reasoned recital justifying departure is present in the present cases.
19. This Court has also observed that the College's Executive Council resolution of 29.02.2008, and orders of 22.08.2009 and 17.07.2010, together with order of State Government dated 12.05.2010 created a clear expectation that Readers/Associate Professors would be in PB-4/AGP Rs.9,000 and that financial liability would be borne by the institution. The petitioner believed upon such orders, and accepted pay and benefits accordingly. It is unfair and impermissible in law for the State / College to now retrospectively seek recovery for alleged overpayments without showing fault on the part of the petitioners or giving them prior opportunity to explain. To permit recovery from a retrospective date without proper inquiry would obviously violate fundamental principles of fairness.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (12 of 14) [CW-17953/2012]
20. The impugned order dated 15.10.2012, in order to implement a blanket instruction of the Finance Department, so as to recover alleged excess payments, appears to have been applied mechanically to College faculty and the absence of procedural safeguards renders the action without application of mind and thus, arbitrary. It is well known that the administrative action that affects private rights must be preceded by reasoned decision- making and an opportunity to be heard; a blanket direction does not absolve the authority of its duty when individual rights are affected. The petitioners have alleged that after making fixation in PB-4, arrears have also been paid to some other Readers/Associate Professors, but such treatment is not being given to the petitioners. The respondents have not given any intelligible differentia or justification for treating the petitioners differently. Selective enforcement without rational explanation constitutes arbitrariness and denial of equal protection of law. Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids arbitrary classification and unequal treatment of equals; where persons are similarly situated and no reasonable basis exists for differential treatment, action is manifestly discriminatory.
21. Recovery of sums paid by the employer at its own process is permissible in limited circumstances, where such excess payment was caused by the employee's fraud or inexcusable concealment; however, recovery from an employee, who accepted pay lawfully paid under an institutional order and regulatory implementation, without first affording opportunity to explain and without established fault, is inequitable. Respondents have not proved either that the petitioners procured the higher pay by (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (13 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] fraud, or that the College's prior orders were ultra vires to such extent that recovery is mandatory. Therefore, the recovery direction is unsustainable in that form. This Court reiterates that Public authorities must act proportionately; recovery of salary already paid to an employees, without there being any fault of the employee is unreasonble and unjust.
22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur, in the case of Rakesh Goyal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7607/2012 decided on 13.05.2013), which addresses the similar issue, where this Court set aside similar recovery directions and directed release of arrears. The facts and legal issues in that decision are substantially congruent with the present case. On principle and in the interest of consistency, the reasoning in Rakesh Goyal (supra) is followed. The respondents have offered no distinguishing features of sufficient weight to displace that precedent. Aforesaid order dated 13.05.2013 passed in the case of Rakesh Goyal (supra) has further been followed by this court in the cases of Arun Prakash Bhana and Others vs State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 8583/2011 and connected petitions decided on 26.08.2013) and Dr. Om Prakash Jakhar & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition no. 11534/2012 decided on 11.02.2025).
23. In the light of aforesaid analysis of facts and principles of law, writ petitions filed by the petitioners are, hereby, allowed. Impugned order dated 15.10.2012, insofar as it directs refixation (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35146] (14 of 14) [CW-17953/2012] of the petitioners' pay in PB-3/AGP Rs.8,000 and recovery of alleged excess amounts from the petitioners, is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are held entitled for receiving pay in PB-4/AGP Rs.9,000 as per AICTE Regulations for the period. Respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery from the petitioners pursuant to order 15.10.2012. If any amount has already been recovered from the petitioners on the basis of impugned order, the respondents shall refund the entire recovered amount within 60 days of this judgment and shall also pay simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of deduction till the date of refund. The respondents shall disburse to the petitioners arrears of Sixth Pay Commission due for the period claimed and the encashment of privileged leaves to the petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition no. 18076/2012, without making any set-off or deduction on account of the impugned order. The respondents shall comply with the above directives within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
24. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.
25. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connected writ petition.
(ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI / (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 07:06:47 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)