[2025:RJ-JP:13536] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2181/2012 Umesh Kumar Sharma Son of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, D-15, Kumawat Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Medical and Health and Family Welfare Services, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director IEC, Directorate, Medical and Health Cum - Family Welfare Services, Jaipur 3. Principal-cum-Controller, Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College - cum-Attached Hospital, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Pragya Seth for Mr.Mahendra Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prakhar Jain for Mr.Archit Bohra, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned orders dated 24.01.2012, by which the respondents have issued recovery orders against the petitioners on the ground that wrong fixation was done in the year 2001. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order has been passed without issuing any notice and providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that there was no fault of the petitioner in fixation of his pay scale and salary in the year 2001. Counsel submits that as per [2025:RJ-JP:13536] (2 of 3) [CW-2181/2012] the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in 2015 (4) SSC 334 where the payment was made in excess of five years, then employees against whom orders of recovery were issued should be exempted from such reimbursement to the employer. Counsel submits that on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan issued a circular in this regard on 17.08.2016 incorporating the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer and submits that wrong fixation was done in favour of the petitioner and mistake was rectified immediately, when the fact came into the notice of the concerned authorities. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of wrong fixation, hence, a decision was taken to recover the excess amount received by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the order passed by the State-Authorities is justified, which requires no interference of this Court and the same is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the order impugned indicates that before passing this order neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and straightaway, the orders of recovery [2025:RJ-JP:13536] (3 of 3) [CW-2181/2012] was passed, the aforesaid orders have been passed by the respondents in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. It is settled proposition of law whenever any adverse order is passed against a person, the authorities concerned are supposed to provide him adequate opportunity by way of issuing notice, but herein the instant case, no such exercise has been done by the respondents and straightaway ex-parte orders have been passed, which are in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.01.2012 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for passing fresh orders, keeping in mind judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) and their own circular dated 17.08.2016. 8. Needless to observe, fresh order would be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/116