Allowed

Hemlata Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Mar 2023CW/838/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking refund of recovered salary by applying a prior Jaipur Bench order. The court held that a pending appeal was no bar to relief, directing the respondents to reimburse salary and interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reimburse salary recovered (excluding training expenses) with interest at 6% p.a. Allowance claim rejected.

Hemlata Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/006093]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 838/2023

¶4

Hemlata Meena D/o Shri Indralal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Kherla, Pala, Tehsil Nalakhera, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

The Adgp (Armed Battalion), Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶10

The Commandant, Hadi Rani Mahila Battalion (Ir), Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: ----
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manish Vyas,AAG.

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

01/03/2023

¶16

No assistance of lawyer on behalf of the petitioner is available today.

¶17

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submits that the controversy involved in the present petition is no more res-integra as the same is covered by the order passed by Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Arun Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013, decided on 11.08.2014 , which reads as follows:-

[2023/RJJD/006093]

[CW-838/2023]

(2 of 3)

“Copy of the petition has been served on Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.

¶22

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to refund the recovered amount from the petitioner on account of salary, allowance and training expenses alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment in Arun Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013, decided on 11.08.2014 at Jaipur Bench and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra).

¶24

Learned AAG made submissions that though the issue raised is squarely covered by judgment in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra) but as another similar nature order passed by this Court is pending consideration before the Divsion Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.288/2021, wherein, effect and operation of the order has been stayed, therefore, the hearing in the present matter be deferred.

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶26

Once it is not in dispute that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra), merely because an appeal arising out of an order passed following the order in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra) is pending consideration before the Division Bench, in which interim order has been granted, cannot be a reason enough for deferring the hearing of the present petition, indefinitely.

¶27

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nirmala Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14864/2021, decided on 25.10.2021, before which also identical submissions were made, has declined similar prayer.

¶28

In view of the above fact situation, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith reimburse the amount of salary (excluding the training expenses) that was recovered from the petitioner, who has resigned to

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/006093]

[CW-838/2023]

join other State services. The respondents would also be required to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment.

¶33

Needful may done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of this order."

¶34

In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed by Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Arun Choudhary (supra) . All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J

¶36

39-Jitender

Hemlata Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlata Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

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

Bahadur Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanwant Singh Vs Rajasthan State Roads Transport Corporation

Tushal Kumar Gehlot Vs State of Rajasthan

Prithvi Raj Ratnoo Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sumitra Gehlot Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan