Allowed

Ramniwas Jat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2023CW/11260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-payment of pension due to audit objection alleging excessive pay fixation. High Court directed State to pay full pension while retaining disputed amount in imprest account pending officer decision on representation rectifying the order vide order dated 11-08-2023.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent State to pay entire retiral dues and full pension within 8 weeks, retaining Rs 181543 (alleged excess) in separate account pending decision on petitioner's representation.

Ramniwas Jat Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:25567]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11260/2017

¶4

Ramniwas Jat S/o Shri Indraj Singh, Resident Of Shyopura, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, At Present Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Dangawas, District Nagaur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶9

District Education Officer, Secondary-First, Nagaur. 4. Assistant Accounts Officer, Rajasthan Council Of Secondary Education, Nagaur.

¶10

Treasury Officer, Merta, District Nagaur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

11/08/2023

¶16

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure-14) passed on the basis of audit objection raised by the Treasury.

¶17

The facts appertain are that the petitioner was retired as Principal from the Government School on 31.12.2017. When the petitioner’s case for pension and retiral dues was being processed, an audit objection was raised by the Treasury Officer, inter-alia, pointing out that the pay fixation of the petitioner had been wrongly made. Such being the position, the respondents did not

[2023:RJ-JD:25567]

[CW-11260/2017]

(2 of 3)

process the petitioner’s pension case, as according to them certain recovery was to be made from the petitioner.

¶22

Mr. Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents’ action of not paying full pension and other retiral dues to the petitioner is illegal. While maintaining that no recovery can be made as the petitioner had not misrepresented or concealed any fact, learned counsel argued that before passing the order dated 04.08.2017, neither any notice was issued to the petitioner, nor any reasons have been assigned for doing the same, hence the same is liable to be set aside.

¶23

Mr. Sarwan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that due to inadvertence, a wrong fixation of salary was made and when such fact was brought to the notice of the District Education Officer by the Treasury Officer, the impugned order has been issued. He submitted that if the amount has been paid in excess, the respondent – State has every right to recover the same and the petitioner cannot retain the amount which was paid in excess of his entitlement.

¶24

On 03.07.2023, this Court had directed the respondents to file reply indicating the total amount purportedly required to be recovered from the petitioner. 6. A chart has been produced by the State duly signed by the District Education Officer on 10.08.2023, in which it has been indicated that a sum of Rs.1,81,543/- is to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶25

After hearing rival counsel and considering that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent – State to pay

[2023:RJ-JD:25567]

[CW-11260/2017]

(3 of 3)

entire retiral dues and full pension to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, however, after deducting a sum of Rs.1,81,543/-, which is alleged to have been paid in excess to the petitioner (due to his wrong fixation). Such amount (i.e. Rs.1,81,543/-) should be kept in a separate or imprest account.

¶30

The petitioner shall file a representation before the District Education Officer raising his objection with regard to the amount (Rs.1,81,543/-) withheld by the respondents.

¶31

On receipt of the representation, the District Education Officer shall consider and decide as to whether such amount is to be recovered or not by passing a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶32

If such order to be passed by the District Education Officer is prejudicial to the petitioner’s right, he will be free to avail appropriate remedy including filing of appeal before the competent authority. Otherwise, the amount retained by the respondents shall be paid to the petitioner.

¶33

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶34

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶35

267-Mak/-

Ramniwas Jat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramniwas Jat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Shailendra Kumar Saraf Vs State of Rajasthan

Lajwanti Vs Amrit Pal Singh

Mukesh Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Priyanka Bai Vs Raj. Public Service Commission and Ors.

Mahendra Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Veer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan