Allowed

Ram Lal Mahich v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Sept 2020CW/7812/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ petition quashing an order that reduced the petitioner's pension. The recovery from retiral benefits was set aside due to lack of hearing and the error not being the petitioner's fault, applying Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 2nd January, 1999 quashed; petitioner entitled to arrears of pension with 9% interest; authorities to complete exercise within two months.

Ram Lal Mahich Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7812/2003

¶3

Ram Lal Mahich; since deceased, through his legal representatives;

¶4

1/1 Smt. Dhapli Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Lal Mahich, aged 60 years

¶5

1/2 Mahaveer Prasad S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Mahich, aged 36 years

¶6

1/3 Ratan Lal S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Mahich, aged 34 years

¶7

1/4 Dhanna Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Mahich, aged 30 years

¶8

1/5 Gokul S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Mahich, aged 24 years.

¶9

All are residents of Village & Post Kashi Ka Bas, Tehsil Dhond, District Sikar

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶13

Commercial Tax Officer, Commerce Tax Department, Government of Rajasthan, District Sikar.

¶14

The Director, Pension Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Karanpal Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.G.C.
	Mr. Nikhil Simlote for Mr. RB Mathur

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶18

Order

¶19

07/09/2020

¶20

The petitioner had attained superannuation on 30^th April, 1995 as a Clerk. After retirement, the respondents disallowed third selection grade already granted to the petitioner earlier on

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[CW-7812/2003]

¶23

6^th May, 1994. The said recovery orders were issued vide order dated 2^nd January, 1999.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery could be made from the petitioner’s retiral benefits after the period of five years on the following grounds:

¶25

That the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing order of disallowing third selection scale after having retired and fault having not been committed by the petitioner, he cannot be burdened on account of any fault at the level of the respondents.

¶26

The petitioner submits that he was rightly granted third selection grade as he had completed requisite period of 27 years of service.

¶27

Reply has been filed by the respondents jointly on behalf of all the respondents and it is stated that the Pension Department had made objections of the petitioner having not acquired the educational qualification as he did not pass the requisite departmental examination proficiency test on 1^st September, 1969 and therefore, the petitioner could not have been granted the third selection scale and was only entitled to second selection scale.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the clarification in this regard had been issued by the Finance Department on 8^th February, 1993 and accordingly, the recovery was affected and third selection scale was withdrawn.

¶29

I have considered the submissions.

¶30

Admittedly, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order making recovery from the petitioner’s retiral benefits and on reducing of his

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

[CW-7812/2003]

¶33

pension. Secondly, this court also finds that the petitioner had actually completed 27 years of service passing of proficiency test may be a necessary requirement for the purpose of promotion. However, the said aspect was not considered at the time when selection scale was granted to the petitioner on 6^th May, 1994. The opportunity of passing of proficiency test during the period of service, is also not found to have been given to the petitioner. In view thereof, this court is satisfied that the third selection scale granted to the petitioner on 6^th May, 1994 did not warrant any interference.

¶34

Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., reported in AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696 , this court also is of the view that recoveries could not have been made from the petitioner as the fault, if any, though not found in the present case, cannot be attributed to the petitioner.

¶35

In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 2^nd January, 1999 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to for all consequential benefits and arrears of pension, which has been reduced, shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest @9% per annum. The exercise shall be completed within a period of two months henceforth, failing which the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings without further reference of notice.

¶36

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶37

FATEH RAJ BOHRA/6-49

Ram Lal Mahich v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal Mahich v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Joshi S/O Shri Ashok Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Singh Vs Labour Court and Anr.

Kamla Sharan Mishra Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr K Girdhar Gopal Vs State of Raj and Ors.