[2025:RJ-JP:30386] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 129/2001 Smt. Meena Srivastava Widow of Late Shri Rajeshwar Dayal, Kayasthpada, Dholpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Sub Division, Dholpur. 3. The Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.K. Kaushik with Mr. Deepak Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Tanushka Saxena for Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG Ms. Supriya Rana for Ms. Minakshi Jain, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/08/2025 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 26.05.1998 issued by the Directorate of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare Rajasthan, Jaipur to the extent to which recovery of Rs.1,61,536 was directed to be recovered from monthly family pension payable to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner late Shri Rajeshwar Dayal was holding the post of LDC in Public Health and Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and while holding the aforesaid post, [2025:RJ-JP:30386] (2 of 3) [CW-129/2001] unfortunately, he expired on 28.11.1993. By that time, since he had completed qualifying services for the purpose of family pension, therefore, the petitioner being his widow was entitled for family pension. However, in quite surprising and shocking manner while issuing order of grant of family pension dated 26.05.1998, recovery of Rs.1,61,536 was directed to be affected from the petitioner. As per petitioner, no such amount was ever demanded from her late husband during his life time, nor was she given any opportunity of hearing prior to passing impugned order. 3. It has also been submitted that in the circumstances where the order impugned to the extent of recovery, has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing is liable to be quashed and no amount whatsoever may be recovered from the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition by stating that the late husband of the petitioner was having responsibility to manage all the materials of the store where he was deputed. However, on physical verification during the Session of 1987-88 & 1988-89, goods totally amounting to Rs.1,93,100 were found less and on account of such dereliction of duties of late husband of the petitioner, the respondents-Department was well within its right to recover the same from the family pension admissible to the petitioner after death of her husband. 5. I have heard rival contentions of both the parties and examined the record. 6. In the entire reply, the respondents have utterly failed to show as to whether any show cause notice or opportunity of [2025:RJ-JP:30386] (3 of 3) [CW-129/2001] hearing was given by the respondents either to the late husband of the petitioner during his life time or even to the petitioner before passing the impugned order to the extent of recovery of alleged amount. Even otherwise, such recovery could not have been made without conducting any inquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned authority. As such the amount sought to be recovered by order dated 26.05.1998 is apparently, arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondents. 7. Even otherwise, as per the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 & Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909, no recovery can be made from any employee under the circumstances given in the aforesaid judgment. 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 26.05.1998 (Annex.-1) to the extent to which recovery of Rs.1,61,536 has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, is hereby quashed. In case, any recovery has been affected pursuant to impugned order of the respondents, the same shall be refunded by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of passing the instant order. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /1