[2025:RJ-JP:32134] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 716/2004 Murari Lal Agarwal S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Agarwal, R/o Kunda Wala Mahadev Ki Gali, Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus The District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/08/2025 1. It is stated that the petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 vide order dated 29.04.2003. After retirement of the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing, order dated 21.08.2003 has been issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Rajasthan), whereby the benefit of selection grade on completion of 15 years of service, earlier granted to the petitioner on 08.08.1989 has been modified in the manner detrimental to the rights of the petitioner and order for recovery of Rs.21999/-, allegedly shown to have been paid in excess to the petitioner, is also directed to the effected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in the year 1989, the benefit of selection grade was given by the respondents at their own, without there being any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. After 14 [2025:RJ-JP:32134] (2 of 3) [CW-716/2004] years from the date of granting the selection grade and even after retirement of the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing such order cannot be passed, which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite service. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. It is clear from perusal of impugned order dated 21.08.2003 itself that the benefits of selection grade granted to the petitioner way-back in the year 1989 have been sought to be modified at later stage. There is no reference of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order, which has admittedly been passed after issuance of order of compulsory retirement on 29.04.2003. In the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (8) SCC 417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in case any benefits more than the entitlement of the concerned employee have been given, the State Government has right to modify such order but later on in the cases of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 as well as in a recent judgment of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909, a clear verdict has been given that in the cases where earlier excess payment was made without there being any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of concerned employee, recovery of alleged excess amount cannot be made from a retired employee. [2025:RJ-JP:32134] (3 of 3) [CW-716/2004] 6. In view of above, order dated 21.08.2003 is quashed to the extent of recovery of Rs.21999/- sought to be made against the petitioner. In case, the amount has already been deposited by the petitioner, same shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the instant order. 7. In view of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands partly allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/11