Allowed

Anil Kuamr Rawat v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Oct 2023CW/6613/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court allowed the challenge against recovery orders. The court held that an employee is entitled to selection scale benefits from the date of regularization, not just initial appointment, based on Supreme Court precedents, and directed no further recovery of amounts.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; respondents directed not to recover amounts received by petitioner.

Anil Kuamr Rawat Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:31178]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6613/2007

¶4

Shri Anil Kumar Rawat, S/o Shri Anand Swaroop Rawat, aged 54 years, presently working as Inspector Executive, Cooperative Department, R/o Opp. Nawrang Bhawan, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Secretary Cooperative, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sahkar Bhawan, 22-Godown, Jaipur.

¶9

Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	:	Ms. Dhriti Sharma &
		Ms. Radhika Meharwal on behalf of
		Mr. Kunal Rawat
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Hari Barath

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

19/10/2023

¶15

By way of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.06.2007 by which recovery orders have been passed against the petitioner.

¶16

Counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Inspector Grade-II on 12.09.1978 and his services were regularized on 22.02.1992. Counsel submits that the benefit of first and second selection scale was granted to the petitioner on completion of 9 and 18 years of service in the year 1993 and 1996. Counsel submits that the petitioner was entitled to get 3^rd

[2023:RJ-JP:31178]

[CW-6613/2007]

(2 of 3)

selection scale on completion of 27 years of service i.e. on 25.09.2005. Counsel submits that the respondents were not justified in passing the impugned order and issuing recovery notices against the petitioner on the pretext that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of selection scale with effect from his date of regularization not with effect from the date of his initial appointment. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitoner and submitted that as per the Circular/Notification issued by the Department of Finance, the respondents have not caused illegality in passing the impugned order dated 08.06.2007. Counsel submits that it is a well settled proposition of law that a government servant is entitled to get the benefit of selection scale with effect from the date of regularization not from the date of initial appointment, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶22

Heard rival submission made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Inspector Grade-II on 12.09.1978 and his services were regularized on the said post on 22.02.1992. It appears that the benefit of first and second selection scale were granted to the petitioner in the year 1993 and 1996 by counting his services for all these benefits with effect from his initial date of appointment.

¶24

Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 49 and Surendra Mohnot Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in

¶25

[2023:RJ-JP:31178]

¶26

[CW-6613/2007]

¶27

(2014) 14 SCC 77 has categorically held that an employee is entitled to get benefit of selection scale with effect from the date of his regularization not from the date of initial appointment. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued directions to the authorities to not to recover the amount received by the employees on account of wrong calculation of the period of service, the employees cannot be blamed for getting the aforesaid benefits as the benefits were extended by the authorities itself.

¶28

In view of the judgments passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) and Surendra Mohnot (supra), the impugned order stands modified. The respondents are directed not to recover the amounts so received by the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

RAJAT/245

Anil Kuamr Rawat v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kuamr Rawat 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikash Devanda S/O Shri Jeevan Ram Devanda Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Dayal Vs R P S C Ajmer and Anr.

Ratan Singh Rathore and Anr. Vs State of Raj

Sandeep Kumar Son of Shri Mohan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Meena S/O Shri Prahlad Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan