The court disposed of the writ petition invoking arguments identical to a coordinate bench order in Santosh Sharma case. Since the controversy was ad idem, the matter was disposed of in light of the earlier judgment without examining the legality of the recovery notification.
no order
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 JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1459/2021
Sunil Kumar Mathur S/o Ramchandra Mathur, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 25 E-11, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur , Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Jangid (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
19/01/2022
This writ petition calls into question the action of the respondents in proposing to effect recoveries from the petitioner Government servant as a consequence of the notification dated 30th October, 2017 issued by the State Government.
Learned counsel Shri Jangid has drawn the Court’s attention to the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by Santosh Sharma vs State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5920/2021), wherein it was observed as below:-
(2 of 3)
[CW-1459/2021]
“Today, when this group of petitions was taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate General tendered an affidavit dated 25th November 2021 filed by one Shri Mangi Lal, Officer-in-Charge of the respondents, in which it is stated that the State Government is considering all the issues with respect to the notification and for such purpose a Committee has been constituted under order dated 05.08.2021. The scope of this Committee involves other issues but one of them being the question of grant of ACP benefits to the Government employees. It is stated that such Committee will take into account the issues arising out the amendments made by notification dated 30th October, 2017. According to the learned Advocate General, this will take about three months time. Till then, no further recoveries would be made on the basis of the said notification.
In our opinion, when the Government, on its own, is considering the multiple issues arising out of the said notification, it would not be proper on our part to examine the legality and validity of the notification. We would therefore dispose of these petitions with certain directions. Before issuing final directions, we may notice that in some of the cases of the pensioners, part or full recoveries have already been made. These recoveries may not be retained by the State till fresh decision is taken, of course, subject to outcome of the decision of the Government and further order of the Court in case the controversy raises.
Under the circumstances, all these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) Let the Government reconsider the entire issue as is stated before us. Final decision preferably may be taken by 28th February, 2022.
(ii) After the decision is taken by the Government, if any of the grievances of the petitioners survive, it would be open for them to file fresh petitions.
(iii) Till fresh decision is taken, the State Government shall not make any further recovery on the basis of the notification dated 30th October, 2017.
(3 of 3)
[CW-1459/2021]
(iv) Recoveries already made from the pensioners would be refunded, subject to final decision of the Government, subject to further challenge.
We are informed that in some of the petitions additional issues have also been raised. None of these issues would get affected by this order. It would be open for the petitioners to file an independent petition, as may be advised subject to all objections of the Government which are kept open.”
In view of the fact that the controversy involved in this writ petition is ad idem , the matter is disposed of in light of the above order. There is no order as to costs.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
40-Sudhir Asopa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition invoking arguments identical to a bench of coordinate division already disposed off on merits can be entertained?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh Sharma vs State of RajasthanDistinguished¶15
Santosh Sharma vs State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5920/2021)
SUNIL KUMAR MATHUR
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
SANDEEP MEHTA
VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
