[2026:RJ-JP:4608] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10014/2025 Santosh Bairwa Wife Of Shri Ramesh Bairwa, Aged About 40 Years, Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Government Upper Primary School Latifganj, Panchyat Samiti And District Tonk (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Additional Director, Rajasthan School Shiksha Parishad, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shika Sankul,block No. 5, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Tonk (Ra.) 4. Chief Block Education Officer, Samagra Shiksha, Block Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karanpal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 31/01/2026 1. Instant writ petition is preferred with the following prayer: It is, therefore, requested that Your Lordship would be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction quashed and set aside the order dated 26.12.2024 and the respondents be directed to not made any recovery from the salary of petitioner in the larger interest of justice. [2026:RJ-JP:4608] (2 of 6) [CW-10014/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, MANU/SC/1195/2014 = (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Jogeshwar Sahu vs. District Judge, Cuttack, reported as 2025 INSC 449, submitted that the petitioner is serving as Assistant Teacher under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Services Posts Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2022”) and vide orders dated 12.07.2023 and 12.08.2024, the salary of the petitioner was sanctioned as ₹51,600/-. 3. He further submitted that the respondent department has issued a letter dated 26.12.2024 for withdrawal of salary granted to her along with recovery of amount already paid. He further submitted that the order of recovery was issued without providing any opportunity of hearing and inquiry. He submitted that the petitioner belongs to Group ‘C’ and recovery from her cannot be effected, against law. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, and submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to get the benefits as per the Rules, but erroneously the same were granted to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was paid excess amount and the same is liable to be recovered. He also placed reliance upon the reply and documents filed on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also perused the judgment as referred by learned counsel for petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:4608] (3 of 6) [CW-10014/2025] 6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Education Assistant from 08.01.1996, but after the policy decision of the Government to absorb contractual employees such as Junior Teacher, Teaching Assistant, Assistant Teacher, etc. under the Rules of 2022, the petitioner was absorbed under the Rules of 2022. As per policy, the pay is required to be fixed in accordance with guidelines issued by respondents. The petitioner was fixed on consolidated pay of ₹51,600/- pursuant to circular dated 23.02.2023 issued by the Finance Department and others. 7. After some time, a letter dated 26.12.2024 was issued with clarification that absorbed employees are entitled to consolidated monthly remuneration of ₹16,900/- per month, and not as interpreted by one of respondent (controlling officer). The petitioner has challenged the order of recovery pursuant to order dated 26.12.2024. 8. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a limited purpose, to challenge the issue of recovery from the salary of the petitioner. There is no challenge regarding her entitlement; therefore, this Court is not considering any issue relating to entitlement of the petitioner. 9. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, Hon’ble Supreme Court has issue of recovery from government servant and observed as under: The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the [2026:RJ-JP:4608] (4 of 6) [CW-10014/2025] employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416, V. Ganga Ram v. Director (1997) 6 SCC 139, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India (2006) 11 SCC 709, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar (2006) 11 SCC 492, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh (2006) 8 SCC 647 and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bahadur (2000) 10 SCC 99. 10. The aforesaid ratio was also considered in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) and Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for recovery as under: “It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-111 and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. [2026:RJ-JP:4608] (5 of 6) [CW-10014/2025] (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 11. Again, in the case of Jogeshwar Sahu vs. District Judge, Cuttack (supra), while relying upon and referring to the judgments in Rafiq Masih (supra) and Syed Abdul Qadir (supra), it has been observed as under: “This Court has consistently taken the view that if the amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. It is held that such relief against the recovery is not because of any right of the employee but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employee from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.” [2026:RJ-JP:4608] (6 of 6) [CW-10014/2025] 12. Admittedly, there is no fault of the petitioner in the grant of any benefit. Moreover, the petitioner was working as a contractual employee and was absorbed under the Rules of 2022 after a policy decision by the Government. Due to misinterpretation of a circular issued by the Finance Department, excess amount has been paid to the petitioner. However, considering the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra) and Jogeshwar Sahu (supra), the petitioner belongs to Class-III, (Group ‘C’), and effecting recovery from such employee would be harsh and arbitrary and sufficient to outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recovery. Therefore, no recovery can be effected for the benefits already paid to the petitioner. 13. Having considered the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and declared that the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from petitioner pursuant to order dated 26.12.2024. Thus, the order dated 26.12.2024 for recovery cannot be implemented qua present petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 15. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /10