Partly allowed

Munna Lal Mittal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2026CW/1975/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging recovery of excess selection scale benefits granted on audit objection without hearing. Court held recovery impermissible where no misrepresentation or fraud by employee and benefit granted under respondents' own interpretation; quashed recovery order while permitting correction of fixation.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.02.2003 quashed to the extent of recovery of Rs.31,732; respondents free to correct selection grade date from LDC appointment without recovery.

Munna Lal Mittal Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:2046]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1975/2003

¶4

Munna Lal Mittal S/o Shri Goverdhan Das Mittal, age around 47 years, R/o Bag Bhaba Sah, Koti Dholpur (Raj.) and at present working as U.D.C. in Municipal Board, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Local Bodies Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Director, Local Bodies, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Municipal Board, Dholpur, through Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Devanshu Agarwal on behalf of
	Mr.	Mukesh Agarwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Rahul Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

08/01/2026

¶15

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 13.02.2003 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Dholpur, whereby pursuant to audit objections, recovery of Rs.31,732 was sought to be effected against the petitioner on account of erroneously granting wrong benefits of selection scale, DA and HRA.

¶16

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Nakedar on probation on 01.03.1976, where his service was confirmed on 29.07.1977. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as LDC on 29.02.1980/01.03.1980 and his service as LDC were confirmed on

[2026:RJ-JP:2046]

[CW-1975/2003]

(2 of 4)

13.11.1991. On completion of 15 years of service, as well as 18 years of service, pursuant to circulars issued by the State Government, benefit of selection grade was granted to the petitioner vide orders dated 01.03.1991, 01.06.1993 and 26.11.1993, where such benefits were granted after computing services of the petitioner from date of his initial appointment.

¶21

However, without affording any opportunity of hearing and only on the basis of alleged audit objections, 10 years thereafter, without issuing any notice, an order dated 13.02.2003 has been issued by the Executing Officer for making recovery of Rs.31,732 under the head of wrong grant of benefit of selection scale along with DA and HRA. Such arbitrary action on the part of the respondents is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.

¶22

The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that as per Government circulars dated 25.01.1992, benefit of selection grade is to be granted from the first date of appointment in the existing cadre/service. Therefore, benefit of selection grade while holding the post of LDC could have been granted to the petitioner only from the date on which the petitioner was appointed to the post of LDC as the services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Nakedar earlier could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of selection scale. However, erroneously such benefits were granted to the petitioner by taking into consideration his earlier services rendered as Nakedar and when such mistake came into notice of the respondents on account of audit objection, vide order dated 13.02.2003, recovery of the excess amount paid on account of

[2026:RJ-JP:2046]

[CW-1975/2003]

(3 of 4)

wrong fixation by granting selection scale coupled with DA and HRA was directed to be made against the petitioner. In such action of the respondents there is no infirmity or illegality, hence, the respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petition.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

It is not disputed that there are no allegations against the petitioner that earlier he got benefit of selection grade on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Whereas while interpreting to the circular with regard to selection scale, the respondents earlier granted the benefit to the petitioner at their own. Thus, even if, such benefits as per report of the audit, were erroneously granted to the petitioner from the wrong date, could not have been recovered from the petitioner without giving him any opportunity of hearing and without following due process of law. In the instant case, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that prior to passing impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.

¶29

It is settled proposition of law that although, benefit of wrong fixation for each selection scale can be withdrawn by the respondent-Government after following the due process of law, yet as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1635/2013) decided on 08.08.2024 as well as Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 , recovery of the amount earlier paid to the employee pursuant to such fixation cannot be sought to be recovered after a long time.

¶30

[2026:RJ-JP:2046]

¶31

[CW-1975/2003]

¶32

In the light of above discussion and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in the manner that although, the respondents are well within their rights to correct the error with regard to grant of selection grade from the date of appointment of the petitioner as LDC, yet they are not entitled for making any recovery of the excess amount vide order dated 13.03.2003. Hence, order dated 13.03.2003 to the extent of recovery, is quashed and set aside.

¶33

Ordered accordingly.

¶34

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶35

DIVYA /22

Munna Lal Mittal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Lal Mittal 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

Nathu Lal Sharma S/O Purushottam Sharma Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Mohan Singh Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Ramveer Vs Development Officer Panchayat

Hotel Corporation Rajasthan Th Vs Rameshwar Lal and Ors.

Sh Manohar Lal Kukad Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Gangaram Vs the Judge Labour Court Bharatp