[2025:RJ-JP:31138] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1364/2006 Dr. Jagan Singh, Son Of Shri Bhana Ram, 6/31, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur At Present Lecturer, EAFM, Govt. College, Kishangarh, District Ajmer Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary, College Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Commissioner, College Education, Jaipur 3. The Principal. R.L. Sahariya Govt. College, Kaladera, District Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Balwada For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/08/2025 1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 06.01.2006 (Annex-4) issued by the Principal Government College, Kaladera, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition and has prayed for quashing the same. 2. Facts in brief are that the State Government issued one notification dated 19.02.2001 whereby the provision was made that a lecturer with Ph.D will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into selection scale. The aforesaid notification dated 19.02.2001 was withdrawn by the respondent- Government vide subsequent notification dated 06.05.2002. [2025:RJ-JP:31138] (2 of 4) [CW-1364/2006] 3. Admitted case of the petitioner is that, he acquired degree of PHD on 25.06.2002. On the basis of such degree, earlier two advance grade increments were given to the petitioner and his pay was fixed accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that without giving any opportunity of hearing, in quite abrupt manner, vide order dated 06.01.2006 earlier order for grant of two advance increments was withdrawn and pay of the petitioner was fixed at the lower stage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2006 would naturally cause recovery of the alleged excess amount which was given to him by virtue of grant of two advance increments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part therefore, in the circumstances where the respondent-Department at its own has granted benefit of two advance increments, cannot withdraw it subsequently and cannot make any recovery whatsoever. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has misled the respondent-Department and has shown date of acquiring degree of Ph.D as 20.04.2002 whereas actually it was 25.06.2002. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in order to strengthen the case, interpolation have also been done in the service book where by making overwriting, the correct date of acquiring degree of Ph.D has been changed to 20.04.2002. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Department has bonafidely granted benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner under the erroneous belief that he [2025:RJ-JP:31138] (3 of 4) [CW-1364/2006] had acquired degree of PHD on 20.04.2002. Learned counsel submits that in case the Department had knowledge of his correct date of acquiring degree of Ph.D was 25.06.2002, the Department would not have granted the benefit of two advance increments. Since such benefit was earlier granted on misrepresentation made by the petitioner hence, the same has rightly been withdrawn by the respondent-Department vide order dated 06.01.2006 and the recovery of excess amount acquired by the petitioner on account of earlier fixation is bound to be made under the aforesaid circumstances. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. A bare perusal of notification dated 19.02.2001 and 06.05.2002 would make it clear that benefit of two advance increments on acquiring degree of Ph.D during service was available only to the college lecturer acquiring degree between 19.02.2001 and 06.05.2002. 11. Admittedly, petitioner has acquired degree of Ph.D on 25.06.2002, hence he was not eligible to get such benefits. Thus, the respondent-Department was well within its rights to withdraw the benefits erroneously granted earlier to the petitioner who is not eligible to get such benefits. 12. So far as the recovery is concerned, I do not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the benefit was granted on account of misrepresentation made by the petitioner by showing wrong date of acquiring degree. Bare reading of order dated 06.01.2006 (Annex-4) would make it clear that earlier benefit of two advance [2025:RJ-JP:31138] (4 of 4) [CW-1364/2006] increments were granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.06.2002, which is actually date of acquiring degree by the petitioner. In case, the version of the respondents that the petitioner has wrongly shown 20.04.2002 as date of acquiring degree, is taken at its face value, then there was no occasion whatsoever for showing 25.06.2002 or the effective date for grant of two advance increments. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has misrepresented in this regard. 13. It is a settled proposition of law that the benefits which have been given by the Department at its own and not because of any misrepresentation or fraud made by the concerned employee, cannot be withdrawn more particularly without giving any opportunity of hearing whatsoever. 14. Thus, in the light of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner for challenging withdrawal of benefits of two advance increments vide order dated 06.01.2006 is hereby rejected however, the respondents are restrained from making any recovery, if any, on account of earlier erroneous grant of such benefits. 15. In light of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/18