In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a recovery order of Rs.5700. The Court noted the audit objection regarding special pay was dropped. The respondent refunded the money with interest, and the order was set aside.
Refund of Rs.5700 with interest granted within one month; recov order quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUD1CATURE;FOR ,RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPU'R
S;B. Civil Writ etitioh No. 2235/208 I. -
I. Prahlad: Babu Dixit S/o late Shri ~agannath I. . Prasad Dixit, aged about 66 years, R/o A-77A, Govindpuri, University Road, Gwaliar, i at present .at hipur.
... Petitioner
Versus
I. The State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Government I
Dho1pu.r (Raj.,),,.
..... Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
24.4.2000 whereby an amount of Rs.5700/.. . e gratuity/ pension of .. the petitioner, who attained superannuation on 31.1.2000 from " 1, " the post of Senior Lecturer. During the pendency of this writ petitiori, the respondents have isled,. a letter dated 5.2.2007 % .. b- i! ._ wherein. it has been stated that the audit para hdlding wrongful I payme,nt.,.of special pay of Rs.300/- per month to the petitioner - a, 11 .g has been drbpped accordingly. The petitioner submits that the 5 i :. I d I \ recovery aiirtount of Rs.5708/by impugned order dated
24.4.2000 deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to receive the-same alongwith the jnterest.
'I E$ .:. b ,.. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that recovery J .I- ,$ . ' "$ was iaid from the gratuity/ pension qfthe petitioner r . "1 ?. iy view of specific . . ~objedion raised by the audit party wherein it was stated %? -6 ;>e$L.' y L.6 " q'$': ." that the petitioner could not have been paid special pay of Rs.3001- per month. The amount th.erefore cannot be said to be
ion in hnuary, 2000 and he o,i-der was U, $,.:4 making is' retirai' dues. A sum of ,:5.:i --, 3 . - the whicti also stands I ,r ,r ( er dated 21.2.2005
retirement making .' 8 \ ; %.% --, . - '#,. ,:5.:i 3 R~. 5 7:boY---.' ($I the r $. I ,r ,r ( dropped 'k~os@~ue
The fedovered A". *. ..ii>..& .. -. 2 petitidher and intere9
petitidher and intere9 e pbtitioner from the .. 5. @"~O/O. as .per the punt. B The said amount shall Be refunded within a period of one month alongwith the interest.
(SANJEEV PMUSH- SHARMA),J
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the recovery order dated 24.4.2000 for an alleged excess payment of Rs.5700 deserves to be set aside.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the disputed amount with interest.
Whether to grant the petitioner one month for the refund of the amount recovered erroneously.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prahlad Babu Dixit
The State of Rajasthan
Sanjeev Mishra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
