Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Moolchand Saini vs State Of Raj And Ors on 26 April, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6291 / 2017
Moolchand Saini S/o Shri Ramjilal, by Caste Saini,, Aged About 61
Years, Shekhpura, Tehsil Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue,, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Chairman, Board of Revenue,, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. The District Collector,, Jhunjhunu.
4. The Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate (Fast Track),
Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
5. The Director, Directorate of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,,
Vidhyut Marg, Jyotinagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Singodiya For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 26/04/2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih: (2015) 4 SCC 334, observing thus:
"18. 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, (2 of 3) [CW-6291/2017] 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 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.
Indisputably, the petitioner was working as class- III employee and the recovery is being effected after his retirement. The case of the petitioner would clearly fall under exceptions (i) & (ii). Therefore, the impugned orders effecting the recovery are unsustainable in law."
It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
(3 of 3) [CW-6291/2017] In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. SS/239