Allowed

Har Bhagwan Monga v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Sept 2022CW/6472/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of orders directing recovery of ₹21,837/- for reinstating a workman under a Labour Court award without prior enquiry. HC allowed the writ, quashing the orders as violative of natural justice and CCA Rules, and directed refund of any amount recovered.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders directing recovery of ₹21,837/- are quashed; any amount recovered is to be refunded within two months.

Har Bhagwan Monga Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6472/2007

¶3

Har Bhagwan Monga S/o Late Shri Jagannath Monga, by caste Khatri- Arora, aged about 63 years, Resident of Shri Guru Ram Das Colony, Ward No.1, Sri Vijay Nagar, Tehsil, Sri Vijay Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary. Irrigation Department, Secretariat,

¶7

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Chief Engineer

¶9

Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

The Superintendent Engineer,

¶11

Irrigation Circle, Sri Vijay Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶12

The Executive Engineer,

¶13

Irrigation Circle Sri Vijay Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶14

The Director,

¶15

Pension Department, Bikaner.

¶16

		----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Shyam Sunder Ladrecha Mr. Vikas Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	:	Ms. Khushbu Choudhary

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶18

Order

¶19

13/09/2022

¶20

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶21

"(i) The impugned letter dated 1.8.2007 (Annexure P/1), order dated 30.4.2005 (Annexure P/6) 27.09.2005 (Annexure P/8), order dated 24.10.2005 (Annexure P/9) and recovery ordered in pursuance thereto including any

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[CW-6472/2007]

¶24

other order passed to this effect by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

¶25

(ii) That if any recovery is effected in the garb of impugned orders, the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount in the garb of impugned orders with an interest @12% p.a.

¶26

(iii) That it may kindly be declared that petitioner has not caused any pecuniary loss to the Govt. while reinstating the workman concerned in the garb of award dated 19.06.2002 passed by labour court and the respondents may kindly be directed to not to hold any proceedings against the petitioner in this regard.

¶27

(iv) Any other relief including the cost of this writ petition, which this court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed."

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working on the post of AEN, an award dated 19.06.2002 came to be passed by learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar directing the employer to reinstate workman namely Baldev Singh in service with 30% back wages from the date of reference i.e. 16.06.2000. The petitioner in compliance of the award dated 19.06.2002, reinstated the workman in service after taking due permission from the higher authorities of the Department. Show cause notices dated 11.12.2002 and 24.03.2004 were served upon the petitioner to explain under whose instructions, he reinstated the workman. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notices stating inter alia that the action taken by him was in compliance of the award dated 19.06.2002 passed by learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar. It is further submitted that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.81/2004 filed by the Department challenging the award dated 19.06.2002 was

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[CW-6472/2007]

¶32

dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2004, therefore, no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner in reinstating the workman. A notice dated 01.08.2007 was served upon the petitioner after superannuation by the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sri Vijay Nagar informing that the concerned office had ordered recovery to the tune of ₹21,837/- for alleged misconduct of reinstating the workman in compliance of the award dated 19.06.2022 passed by learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that recovery of sum of ₹21,837/- had rightly been ordered against the petitioner for alleged misconduct in reinstating the workman on duty without obtaining permission/approval from the competent higher authority.

¶34

Admittedly, neither any show cause notice was served upon the petitioner prior to order recovery of sum of ₹21,837/- nor any enquiry as contemplated in the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was conducted. Thus, the act of the respondents in issuing impugned orders is against the Principle of natural justice as well as violation of the provision of CCA Rules, 1958.

¶35

It is also not in dispute that workman was reinstated in service in compliance of the award dated 19.06.2002 by the petitioner. The challenge to the award dated 19.06.2002 by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.81/2004 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2004.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 1.8.2007 (Annexure P/1), orders dated 30.4.2005 (Annexure P/6) 27.09.2005 (Annexure P/

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[CW-6472/2007]

¶39

8), 24.10.2005 (Annexure P/9) passed by the respondents ordering recovery of ₹21,837/- from the petitioner are quashed and set aside. If any amount has been recovered pursuant to aforesaid orders, amount so recovered be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this order.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶42

Ravi Kh. 77

Har Bhagwan Monga v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Har Bhagwan Monga v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Wife of Shri Pooranmal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Lt. Col. Shokat Ali (Retd.) Vs Abdul Jabbar Khan

Udailal @ Udairam Vs Rameshwarlal

Rakesh Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Ram Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dana Ram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.