[2026:RJ-JP:423] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7853/2002 Shiv Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Chauth Mal Sharma, aged about 51 years, R/o 1-I-6, Vikas Nagar, Bundi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Directorate of Agriculture Marketing through its Director, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti through its Secretary, Bundi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nadeem Mazahir on behalf of Mr. Bhanwar Bagri For Respondent(s) : Ms. Deepa Singh on behalf of Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC Mr. Yash Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/01/2026 1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed orders dated 02.04.2002 & 27.07.2002 passed by the Additional Director, Agriculture Marketing, Government of Rajasthan and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bundi respectively, whereby recovery of Rs.1,32,407/- is directed to be effected against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Auction cleark-cum-LDC in February, 1975, thereafter he was reappointed on 27.10.1975 on daily wages basis. Later on, one formal appointment was granted to him on 31.03.1976 on the post of Chowkidar, however, he was asked to discharge the work of LDC. Since 24.12.1977, regular pay scale of LDC was granted to the petitioner and vide order [2026:RJ-JP:423] (2 of 4) [CW-7853/2002] dated 02.02.1982, the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 24.12.1978 on the post of Auction Clerk-cum-LDC. However, narrating the orders earlier passed by the respondents to be erroneous and by incompetent authority, it was alleged that payment of excess salary has been made to the petitioner and on objection being raised in audit, a preliminary inquiry was although conducted by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bundi, yet in such inquiry, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was given to the petitioner and on the basis of report of audit party as well as preliminary inquiry report dated 25.06.1999, impugned orders have been passed for recovery of excess amount earlier paid to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders are suffering from violation of Principles of Natural Justice as they have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to committing any misrepresentation or fraud in getting the alleged higher salary and such salary was granted to the petitioner by the respondents on their own. Under these circumstances, no recovery whatsoever could have been made from the petitioner. It is also submitted that on attaining age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired w.e.f. 30.04.2006, however, while granting the pensionary benefits the amount which is in question in the impugned orders has been withheld by the respondents. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that an employee is supposed to draw the salary for the post on which he was subsequently appointed, however, in the instant case, the [2026:RJ-JP:423] (3 of 4) [CW-7853/2002] petitioner was although appointed on the post of Chowkidar, yet was drawing salary of LDC, therefore, when this error was indicated during audit, a fact finding inquiry was also conducted by the respondents and during inquiry it was found that excess payment has been made to the petitioner, which was liable to be recovered. It is further submitted that the amount paid to the petitioner was public money and petitioner was not entitled for retaining the same, hence there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that no person can be saddled with any kind of adverse consequences without affording any opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, although a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the respondent-Samiti, yet during such inquiry, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Thus, apparently impugned orders of recovery are in violation to principles of natural justice. 7. In addition to above, respondents have utterly failed to point out any mistake on the part of the petitioner and there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, where the respondents at one point of time, themselves have granted higher pay to the petitioner, of course such mistake can be rectified to the extent of re-fixation of the pay of petitioner in the right pay scale, yet the amount which has earlier been paid to the petitioner without there being any misrepresentation or fraud on his part, cannot be permittted to be recovered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogeswar [2026:RJ-JP:423] (4 of 4) [CW-7853/2002] Sahoo & Ors. Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724, after considering the earlier judgments of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1994 (2) SCC 521 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 the relevant part has held as under: "11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable." 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and in view of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and, is hereby, allowed. 9. Orders dated 02.04.2002 & 27.07.2002 passed by the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, which shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/20