[2025:RJ-JP:14414] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8945/2011 Smt Shashi Sharma daughter of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma wife of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Sharma, aged about 63 years, resident of R-246, Behind Museum, Kila, Bharatpur (Raj.), retired fromt he post of Senior Teacher, Government Girls Middle School, Kumher Gate, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Raj. through the Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.) 3. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. C. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. G. K. Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 28/03/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide Annexure-3 dated 12.06.2000, recovery was made through challan from the date of initial appointment i.e. 01.11.1964 for a sum of Rs. 21,692/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Two Only) and neither any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted nor the mandate of the settled position of law was followed. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment encapsulated in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Further, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is [2025:RJ-JP:14414] (2 of 4) [CW-8945/2011] entitled for selection pay scale in light of the respondents’ clarification. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has stoutly opposed the contentions noted herein above, on the ground that reliance placed upon the document by the petitioner for grant of selection scale i.e. order dated 12.04.2002 was withdrawn by the Finance Department and the fact is not disclosed by the petitioner or may be she is unaware qua the same. It is further submitted that the impugned recovery as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner being against the settled position of law is not true nevertheless, as on date the same cannot be refunded as in terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Narain, it can be deduced that the ad-hoc or temporary service is not to be counted for giving benefits of selection scale. 3. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record available on record and considered the judgments cited at Bar. 4. Upon considering the aforementioned contentions the following facts are noteworthy:- 4.1 That the petitioner is approximately 86 years old aged woman. 4.2 That the petition was filed in the year 2011, no affidavit as per directions of the Court was filed and therefore vide order dated 28.02.2025, for the delay, a cost was imposed which was paid by concerned Officer In-charge, in his personal capacity. 5. At this juncture, this Court clarifies that the delay and prejudiced so caused to the petitioner, is duly compensated and [2025:RJ-JP:14414] (3 of 4) [CW-8945/2011] upon the concerned Officer In-charge as a cost has also been levied. Therefore, it is made clear that no prejudice has to be caused to the Officer In-charge, as he is released from the burden which was to be paid to the petitioner. 6. Withal, in light of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can be further deduced that where ever there are low paid employees, after a lapse of considerable period, for reasons which were not attributed to the petitioner/employee, no recovery can take place. it is also noteworthy that the said fact is also not refuted by the respondents. For the sake of handiness the relevant extract from the afore-relied judgment is reproduced herein below: "It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class- III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a [2025:RJ-JP:14414] (4 of 4) [CW-8945/2011] higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." 7. In light of the above, recovery made by Annexure-3 dated 12.06.2000 for the sum of Rs. 21,692/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Two Only) be paid back to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this judgment, along with an interest of 6% per annum. 8. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Order dated 12.06.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja/8