Allowed

Ran Singh v. Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Pra. Nig. Ltd. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2024CW/2165/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Technical Helper challenged recovery of excess salary allegedly overpaid between 1986 and 1989 due to the employer's own faulty pay fixation. Citing the Supreme Court's Rafiq Masiah principles, the court held no recovery could be made from an employee in the lowest rung who bore no fault, and quashed the recovery notice.

What did the court decide?

Recovery notice dated 21.01.2008 for Rs.1,39,854 quashed; future re-fixation and corresponding pension not to be adversely affected.

Ran Singh Vs Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Pra. Nig… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:7827]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2165/2008

¶4

Ran Singh S/o Shri Shivlal Rajpurohit, aged 61 years, resident of Village & Post Nokha, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalorer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, New Power House, Jodhpur.

¶9

The Assistant Engineer (O&M), Account Officer (District Circle), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ahore, District Jalore.

¶10

The Assistant Secreatary, Pension Section, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Marg, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharnia

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

14/02/2024

¶16

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2007 (Annex.9) and the consequential recovery notice dated 21.01.2008 (Annex.10).

¶17

The petitioner, who was working as Technical Helper, has challenged the order dated 26.11.2007 to the extent of seeking recovery of the excess amount allegedly paid to him and the consequential order dated 21.01.2008.

¶18

The basic ground on which the case is premised as, that the fixation was made by the respondents themselves, without there being any misrepresentation or concealment by him and, therefore, no recovery can be made.

[2024:RJ-JD:7827]

[CW-2165/2008]

(2 of 2)

Mr. Dharnia, learned counsel for the respondent – Nigam was not in a position to justify the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner, who is in the lowest rung in the hierarchy of the employees of respondent – Nigam.

¶23

When the Court posed a question that how can such recovery be made in light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih

¶24

(White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , learned counsel for respondent submitted that maybe recovery cannot be made in light of Hon’ble the Supreme Court’s judgment, but so far as re-fixation is concerned, the same can be done.

¶25

Admittedly, the recovery which is sought to be made from the petitioner relates back to year of 1986 to 1989 and there was no role of the petitioner let alone the fault.

¶26

The respondents cannot pass on the burden upon the petitioner for their own fault, particularly when the petitioner was drawing paltry salary and the same has been utilized.

¶27

The petition is, therefore, allowed.

¶28

The impugned order dated 21.01.2008 (Annex.10) seeking to recover a sum of 1,39,854/- is, hereby, quashed.₹

¶29

The decision of the present writ petition will not adversely effect petitioner’s fixation from future date and corresponding pension being paid to the petitioner.

¶30

The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

29-Arvind/-

Ran Singh v. Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Pra. Nig. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ran Singh v. Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Pra. Nig. Ltd. 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

Lrs of Shankar Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vahid Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Chandra Paneri Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Naynesh Sharma Vs Union of India

Kanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan