[2026:RJ-JP:66] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 155/2008 Shri Gyan Chand Kanuga, S/o Shri Ghewar Chand, Plot No. 6/141, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur- 302020 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Hathi Bhata, Power House, Jaipur Road, Ajmer. 2. Dy. Secy. (Estt.), Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Shade No. 5, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gunjan Chawla, Adv. & Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, Adv. for Mr. Neeraj Batra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/01/2026 1. Petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the respondent-Corporation, whereby pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 earlier granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13.12.2006 has been reduced to Rs. 6500-10500 and consequently directions have also been given to effect recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner pursuant to order dated 13.12.2006. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 12.12.2007 has been issued by the respondents without granting any opportunity of hearing whatsoever to the [2026:RJ-JP:66] (2 of 4) [CW-155/2008] petitioner. It is further stated that there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to committing any fraud or misrepresentation for the purpose of getting Higher Pay Scale of Rs.8000-13500 and it was granted by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioner on their own. It is submitted that the petitioner has already retired from the services of the respondent- Corporation, therefore, effecting recovery of alleged excess amount is totally against the judgments delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Harsa Ram Choudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005 Supreme (Raj) 3065 and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1635/2013) decided on 08.08.2024. 3. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. 4. At the relevant time when the petitioner was granted benefit of selection grade vide order dated 13.12.2006, he was holding the post of Statistician, whose existing pay scale was Rs.1640-2900 (revised as Rs.5500-9000) and vide order dated 13.12.2006 by virtue of granting first selection grade, it was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to show as to in what manner the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 (revised as Rs.5500-9000) can be raised to the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 by virtue of granting benefit of first selection grade. [2026:RJ-JP:66] (3 of 4) [CW-155/2008] 6. As per Rajasthan Civil Services (revised pay scale) Rules, 2006, and the relevant circular dated 17.04.1998 with regard to grant of selection grade prevailing in the relevant time, pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 was to be revised as pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 on account of granting first selection grade. It appears that on account of bonafide error, the petitioner was earlier granted Higher Pay Scale of Rs.8000-13500 for which the petitioner was not entitled. Thus, the respondents have committed no mistake in passing the order dated 12.12.2007, whereby the mistake committed earlier has been rectified. 7. In the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttrakhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (8) SCC 417, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that benefit of Higher Pay earlier granted to an employee by mistake or against the rules can be further rectified by the employer at later stage, therefore, this Court does not find any error in order dated 12.12.2007 so far as reduction of pay scale is concerned. 8. So far as recovery of excess amount vide order dated 12.12.2007 is concerned, the issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh (Supra) where after taking into consideration the earlier judgments of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475, Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC online SC 536 and other judgments, in the cases where the excess amount has been paid without there being any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, the employer has been prevented for making any recovery from the employee. [2026:RJ-JP:66] (4 of 4) [CW-155/2008] 9. In view of above, the respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery from the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2007. 10. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of in view of above directions. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /17