[2025:RJ-JP:36088] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1044/2016 Ramgopal Napit S/o Shri Surajmal Napit, aged about 60 years, R/o Uparla Pada, Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Additional Chief Secretary-, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dausa 3. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.C. Sharma with Ms. Nidhi Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC with Mr. Abhishek Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/09/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Lalsot, whereby representation submitted by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub Nakedar on 17.01.1979 and thereafter, he was absorbed on the post of Gram Sewak in Panchayati Raj Department vide order dated 14.05.2001 in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/-. Petitioner was also granted benefit of selection grade on completion of 9 and 18 years of service and his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5500- [2025:RJ-JP:36088] (2 of 4) [CW-1044/2016] 9000/-, which was further revised and benefit of 3rd selection grade was also granted to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has retired on attaining age of superannuation with effect from 30.06.2014, however, by alleging that wrong benefit of selection grade was granted to the petitioner, the benefits of selection grade were modified in the manner disadvantageous to the petitioner and recovery was also made from pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the benefits of selection grade were granted to the petitioner by the respondent-Department at their own without there being any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and the same has been recovered without giving any due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on account of bona fide oversight and inadvertence, benefit of selection grade was granted to the petitioner by computing service of 9, 18 and 27 years from the date of his initial appointment, whereas his initial appointment was not a regular appointment. Hence, when the aforesaid mistake was pointed out, the same was corrected by withdrawing the wrong benefits and by granting the pay scale for which the petitioner was entitled. Since, on account of earlier wrong benefits granted to the petitioner, excess amount was released to him, the State Government has all the rights to recover the amount overpaid to the petitioner on account of erroneous benefits of selection grade earlier granted to the petitioner. It was also submitted that a Government employee is expected to draw salary in the pay scale for which he is legally [2025:RJ-JP:36088] (3 of 4) [CW-1044/2016] entitled and since, the petitioner was not legally entitled for the benefits of selection grade in higher pay scale, therefore, there was no requirement to afford any opportunity of hearing prior to modifying the benefits of selection grade and effect recovery against the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is an admitted case of both the parties that benefits of selection grade were granted earlier by the respondent- Department to the petitioner without there being any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, nor was there any concealment or suppression of fact attributable to the petitioner. Therefore, pursuant to earlier orders of selection grade, when the petitioner has drawn salary, it becomes his vested rights to draw salary in accordance with the orders passed by the authorities. Such rights created on account of orders passed by the authorities without there being any separation of fact on the part of the employee, cannot be withdrawn or modified detrimental to the interest of concerned employee without giving any opportunity of hearing. 7. However, 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 granted liberty to the Government authorities to pass orders for making correction in the earlier wrong orders whereby excess benefits were released to the concerned employee. 8. However, in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in 2015 (4) SCC [2025:RJ-JP:36088] (4 of 4) [CW-1044/2016] 334 Supreme Court and Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has although granted right to the Government authorities to rectify the earlier mistakes, yet, it has been clearly mandated that no recovery shall be made from a retired Government servant. 9. In the instant case, the recovery has been effected after retirement of the petitioner from his post retiral benefits which is arbitrary and illegal in the light of guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. 10. In view of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed to the extent to which recovery of alleged excess amount has been made from his retiral benefits. The State Government is at liberty to make fixation of the petitioner in accordance with order dated 29.04.2015, yet the recovery effected by the State Government against the petitioner is declared as illegal. 11. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /142