Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chatra Gameti vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited ... on 29 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 786/2024
Chatra Gameti S/o Shri Deva, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Pahara,
Ganesh Nagar, Pipaliwala Chowk, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer Through
Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel, Ajmer.
2. The Secretary (Admn.), Ajmer Discom, Udaipur.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Udaipur.
4. Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Udaipur.
5. Assistant Engineer, Savina, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narpat Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Sodha
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order Reportable 29/10/2025
1. The present special appeal has been preferred claiming the following relief:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this special appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3796/2020 titled Chatra Gameti Vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors. may kindly be quased and set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB] (2 of 9) [SAW-786/2024] Such other order as your lordship deems fit and necessary may also be passed by the Hon'ble Court in favour of the appellant."
2. Brief facts leading to the present controversy are that the appellant, after serving the respondent-department for several decades with an undisputed service record, superannuated on 30.06.2016. Prior to the release of his pensionary benefits, the respondents issued a communication dated 18.04.2016 alleging excess payment on account of erroneous pay fixation and directed recovery of a sum of ₹78,454/-. The appellant, being a low-paid retiring employee dependent upon pension for subsistence, deposited the amount on 05.05.2016 under compulsion. 2.1. Subsequently, upon becoming aware of the legal position governing such recoveries from retired employees, the appellant challenged the recovery by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3796/2020, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.05.2024 on grounds of delay and acquiescence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present Special Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the recovery of ₹78,454/- from the appellant, a low-paid employee who had already superannuated on 30.06.2016, was wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. It was urged that the appellant neither misrepresented nor suppressed any fact at any stage of his service, and the alleged excess payment arose solely on account of the respondents' own error in fixation of pay.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB] (3 of 9) [SAW-786/2024] Therefore, no recovery could have been made after retirement, much less by compelling the appellant to deposit the amount under threat of withholding his pension.
3.1. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant's deposit of the amount on 05.05.2016 cannot be construed as voluntary acquiescence, as the appellant was made to understand that unless the amount was deposited, his pensionary benefits would not be released. Such action, it was argued, amounted to coercion and economic duress, rendering the so-called consent legally ineffective.
3.2. Learned counsel contends that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the writ petition was barred by delay and acquiescence, as the recovery order itself was void, contrary to binding precedent, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was emphasized that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically barred recoveries from retired employees, the question of delay cannot override the illegality of the action.
3.3. Reliance was also placed on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 2013 decided on 08.08.2024, wherein it was held that recovery made years after retirement, without any misrepresentation by the employee, is grossly illegal and that such amounts must be refunded along with applicable interest.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB] (4 of 9) [SAW-786/2024] 3.4. On these submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside, the recovery order dated 18.04.2016 be quashed, and the respondents be directed to refund the recovered amount with interest.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the appeal and supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that the appellant had deposited the amount of ₹78,454/- on 05.05.2016 without raising any protest, and therefore the plea that the amount was deposited under compulsion is an afterthought. It was argued that once the appellant voluntarily deposited the amount, he is estopped from challenging the same at a belated stage.
4.1. It was further submitted that the impugned writ petition suffered from gross delay, having been filed nearly four years after the deposit of the amount, and thus the learned Single Judge rightly applied the doctrine of acquiescence. The respondents contended that an employee who accepts a position without objection cannot later claim that the act was illegal, particularly after substantial time has elapsed.
4.2. Learned counsel argued that the recoverable amount arose on account of wrong fixation of pay, which was corrected upon internal audit. Since the excess amount was not part of the appellant's legitimate entitlement, the department was justified in seeking its adjustment from the appellant. It was submitted that rectification of an erroneous financial benefit is within the (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB] (5 of 9) [SAW-786/2024] permissible administrative domain of the employer, and the appellant cannot seek to retain an amount which he was never entitled to.
4.3. It was further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the appellant, including Rafiq Masih(Supra) and Jagdish Prasad Singh(Supra), are distinguishable on facts, as those cases involved recoveries made unilaterally after retirement, whereas in the present case the appellant himself deposited the amount prior to release of pensionary benefits. Thus, the factual matrix does not fall within the prohibited categories enumerated by the Supreme Court.
4.4. On these grounds, it was urged that the appeal is devoid of merit, that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and acquiescence, and that no interference is warranted by this Court.
5. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties and having carefully examined the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 and the recovery communication dated 18.04.2016, this Court observes that the essential facts are not in dispute. The appellant retired from service on 30.06.2016 after an undisputed tenure of several decades. Prior to release of his pension, the respondents issued a communication dated 18.04.2016 alleging excess payment due to erroneous pay fixation over a long span of years and demanded recovery of ₹78,454/-. The appellant deposited the said amount on 05.05.2016.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB] (6 of 9) [SAW-786/2024]
6. This Court finds that the alleged excess amount arose entirely due to the respondents' own fixation of pay at different points of time. Admittedly, no misrepresentation, suppression, or fault is attributed to the appellant. His pay and increments were at all times determined and released by the competent authority of the department.
7. This Court observes that the controversy therefore centres around whether such a recovery could have been sought from a low-paid employee at the verge of retirement, particularly when the cause of the alleged excess payment spans a long period and is undisputedly attributable to the respondents' internal errors. The appellant's status as a retired, low-paid employee is also undisputed.
8. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions beginning with Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, and later in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, has consistently held that recoveries from Class III/IV employees, and from retired employees, are impermissible when the excess payment is not a result of employee misconduct but stems from the employer's own fixation errors.
9. This Court finds that the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 2013, decided on 08.08.2024) is directly applicable to the present matter. In that case also, recovery was sought from a retired employee on the basis of an (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB] (7 of 9) [SAW-786/2024] alleged pay-fixation error detected many years later. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held the recovery to be "grossly illegal and arbitrary."
9.1. This Court observes that para 27 of Jagdish Prasad Singh (supra) reads as under:
"The order dated 8th October, 2009 passed by the State Government directing reduction in the pay scale of the appellant from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and directing recovery of the excess amount from him is grossly illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed. Therefore, the appellant shall continue to receive the pension in accordance with the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500."
9.2. This Court further observes that para 28 of the said judgment lays down the consequential relief in unequivocal terms:
"In case, if any reduction in pension and consequential recovery was effected on account of the impugned orders, the appellant shall be entitled to the restoration/reimbursement thereof with interest as applicable."
10. This Court finds that the factual matrix here bears a close and material resemblance to the circumstances considered in Jagdish Prasad Singh (Supra). The alleged excess arose due to the respondents' own interpretation of pay rules; the recovery was sought in close proximity to retirement; and the employee was left remediless when the issue surfaced only much later. These peculiar factual features attract the ratio of paras 27 and 28 in full measure.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB] (8 of 9) [SAW-786/2024]
10. This Court observes that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay and acquiescence, primarily because the appellant deposited the amount without protest. However, in light of the peculiar factual matrix when the underlying recovery itself is legally impermissible and contrary to binding precedent, procedural delay in the instant case does not confer legitimacy on an otherwise unsustainable action.
12. This Court therefore observes that the recovery order/communication dated 18.04.2016 being contrary to the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih(Supra) and Jagdish Prasad Singh(Supra) cannot be sustained in law. The deposit made by the appellant on 05.05.2016 cannot be treated as an admission or waiver of rights, particularly in view of the long-standing principles protecting retired employees from retrospective financial liabilities arising out of departmental errors.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 2013, decided on 08.08.2024), the present Special Appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is allowed.
14. The impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3796/2020 is set aside.
15. The recovery communication/order dated 18.04.2016, whereby an amount of ₹78,454/- was sought and recovered from (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:49327-DB] (9 of 9) [SAW-786/2024] the appellant on the basis of alleged erroneous pay fixation, is hereby quashed and set aside, being contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. Consequent upon the above, the respondents are directed to refund to the appellant the recovered amount of ₹78,454/- along with interest, as applicable to delayed payment of pensionary dues, in terms of para 28 of Jagdish Prasad Singh (supra), which reads:
"28. In case, if any reduction in pension and consequential recovery was effected on account of the impugned orders, the appellant shall be entitled to the restoration/reimbursement thereof with interest as applicable."
16. The refund shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The appellant's pensionary benefits shall stand restored in full, without any reduction on account of the quashed recovery. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 34-SKant/-
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:50:47 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 08:53:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)