Allowed

Smt. Manju Yadav v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2023CW/4091/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of recovery orders issued without a prior inquiry. The court relied on a precedent requiring inquiry before recovery, setting aside the specific impugned orders while permitting the department to proceed under service rules with a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned recovery orders dated 31.03.2017 and 14.12.2017 are quashed and set aside. The respondents shall be free to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount under the relevant se

Smt. Manju Yadav Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:20268]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4091/2018

¶4

Smt. Manju Yadav, D/o Shree Rakesh Yadav, R/o Indra Colony, Delwala Tehsil Nathdwara District Rajsamand, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary To The Government, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer - Cum - Additional District Programme Coordinator Mgnrega, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand.

¶9

Development Officer - Cum - Programme Officer, Mgnrega, Panchayat Samiti Khamnor, District Rajsamand.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

07/07/2023

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure-4) and 14.12.2017 (Annexure-5) whereby, the respondents have sought to recover certain amount(s) from the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have proceeded for recovery of the amount from the petitioner without conducting any inquiry.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Division Bench of

(2 of 2)

[2023:RJ-JD:20268]

[CW-4091/2018]

this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1439/2014 (Hanuman Swami vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) , whereby the Division Bench has quashed and set aside the recovery order while granting liberty to the respondents to proceed against the appellant-petitioner in accordance with the prescribed Rules.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

¶22

In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery orders dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure-4) and 14.12.2017 (Annexure-5) are quashed and set aside.

¶23

The respondents shall, however, be free to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount under the relevant service Rules, while granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶24

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶26

379-Mak/-

Smt. Manju Yadav v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Yadav 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Darshan Singh Vs Union of India

Fateh Singh Vs State and Ors.

Premlata Paliwal Vs State and Ors.