[2025:RJ-JP:559] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10107/2020 Shiv Ram Meena S/o Shri Dhansiram Meena, Aged About 44 Years, R/o H.no. 49 Shrinath-Nagar, Shyopur, Pratap-Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Registrar 2. The District Collector, Dausa District Dausa 3. The Tehsildar, Basawa District Dausa ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neelu Sharma for Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 06/01/2025 1. By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has impugned the order dated 01.07.2020, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, issuing directions to the District Collector, Dausa to recover the amount, if paid in excess to the petitioner, pursuant to his confirmation on the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant (TRA) with effect from 07.08.2015. 2. Having perused the record, it appears that as many as 11 Tehsil Revenue Accountants passed the supplementary examination on 07.08.2015 and they were made permanent from the date of clearing the supplementary examination. However, they claimed regularisation with effect from May, 2014, when their probation period was completed. [2025:RJ-JP:559] (2 of 2) [CW-10107/2020] 3. In one of the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7478/2016: Tej Ram Meena v. The Revenue Board, Ajmer, filed by one Tej Ram Meena, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of his writ petition with liberty to file a representation vide order dated 20.04.2017. In pursuance thereof when he submitted representation and sought to take resort for grant of monetary benefits to him with effect from May 2014, stating inter alia that petitioner had been given such benefits, whereupon the Board of Revenue passed the order impugned dated 01.07.2020 with observation that if any excess payment has been made to the petitioner, treating his regularization from May 2014 even though he cleared the supplementary examination on 07.08.2015, same be recovered from him. 4. On issuance of such an order dated 01.07.2020, the petitioner has preferred instant writ petition on 24.08.2020. 5. Petitioner has failed to apprise this Court that any order for recovery, in pursuance of the order dated 01.07.2020, has been passed against the petitioner by the department, to recover the excess amount paid to him. In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the recovery notice/ order, if passed by the respondents against petitioner. 6. Any other pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J SOURAV /38