Dismissed

State of Arj and Ors. v. Amar Chand and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2014SAW/1557/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Appeal was dismissed against orders allowing a retired employee to retain erroneously paid Motor Transport Allowance. The Court found meritless the appeal as the lower courts correctly held that recovery could not be permitted due to the employee's retirement status and lack of government procedure to quantify the excess.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decision to set aside the recovery order from the retired respondent.

State of Arj and Ors. Vs Amar Chand and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1557/2012. The State of Raj. & Ors. VERSUS Amar Chand & Anr.

¶3

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1557/2012.

¶4

The State of Rajasthan & Others. VERSUS Amar Chand & Another. 12.12.2014.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA

¶6

Dr.A.S.Khangarot, Addl.Govt.Counsel for State. Mr.Yogesh Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.1.

¶7

¶8

Instant appeal has been filed against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.13.07.2012 confirming the order passed by the Service Appellate Tribunal dt.17.06.2011.

¶9

As it reveals from the record, the respondent was appointed as Constable on 29.02.1996 and joined service on 03.03.1996 and he was later on confirmed and in terms of the circular of the State Government dt.25.01.1992, he was granted the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. However, at a later point of time, he was granted benefit of Motor Transport (MT) Allowance being a technical person but it reveals that later on it was realized that it was erroneously paid to him and accordingly order was passed by the State Government dt.08.11.2007 followed with order dt.14.11.2007 for making recovery of excess amount paid to him and that was subject matter of challenge before the ld.Tribunal and so also before the ld.Single Judge and the ld.Single Judge after hearing the appellant dismissed the petition holding that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on behalf of the respondent-employee and there appears no reasonable justification to hold recovery from the employee and to the extent of excess payment made to him, the order impugned was set aside.

¶10

It is informed to this court that the employee stood retired

¶11

-2-

¶12

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1557/2012. The State of Raj. & Ors. VERSUS Amar Chand & Anr.

¶13

from service much prior to the passing of order by the ld.Tribunal on 31.03.2008 and thereafter the State Government preferred writ petition but that also came to be dismissed on 13.07.2012. It is not made available to the court as to how much the alleged excess amount has been paid to the employee during the interregnum period and later on by the orders impugned dt.08.11.2007 and 14.11.2007 the State Government to the extent of recovery, it was set aside by the ld.Tribunal and confirmed by the ld.Single Judge, under order impugned.

¶14

Counsel for appellant submits that if the payment was made in excess, which was not due to the employee, certainly can be recovered from him.

¶15

In the given case, the respondent-employee stood retired way back in March, 2008 and what is the total sum to be recovered from him is also not known to the court and apart from this, before the ld.Tribunal and the ld.Single Judge, grievance has been examined and it is not the case of the appellant that any procedure was followed while order impugned came to be passed, arriving to the conclusion regarding excess amount to be recovered from him and in these facts & circumstances, the ld.Tribunal and so also the ld.Single Judge was not inclined to permit the appellant in making recovery from the respondent-employee, if at all it was unauthorizedly paid to him.

¶16

We have considered the submissions made by the parties and do not find any error in the order impugned passed by the ld.Single Judge which requires interference in the instant intra-court appeal.

¶17

-3-

¶18

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1557/2012. The State of Raj. & Ors. VERSUS Amar Chand & Anr.

¶19

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit stands

¶20

dismissed.

¶21

(J.K.RANKA),J.

¶22

(AJAY RASTOGI),J.

¶23

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, Sr.P.A.

State of Arj and Ors. v. Amar Chand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Arj and Ors. v. Amar Chand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poddar Publice School Shiksha Vs State Anilam Husbandry Anr.

Smt Gayati Rathore Vs Chairman Cum Managing Dir Ors.

Sukhram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Assistant Engineer P W D Vs Smt Kesar Bai andANR

Babu Lal Sharma Vs State Revenue Departmentors

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Amco India Ltd. Bhiwadi