[2026:RJ-JP:496-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.717/2025 1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director. 2. The Secretary (Administration), Jaipur, Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. The Account Officer (Ea), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shed No. 1, Old Power House, Banipark, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Jagdish Prasad Mittal S/o Late Shri Ram Gulab Mittal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o C-56, Indira Vihar, Kota (Rajasthan). 304005. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.Ritwick Dave, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 08/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that in similar appeal i.e. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.467/2025 titled as Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Udai Ram Verma, this Court has dismissed the same, vide order dated 04.11.2025, on merits after considering the law. 2. We find that this Court has held as under:- “3. We find that the view as expressed has been again considered at length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022) SCC online SC 536 wherein, it has been held as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:496-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-717/2025] “16. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The Judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 02.03.2009 and also of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated05.01.2006 impugned herein, and the order dated26.06.2000 passed by the Public Redressal Complaint Cell of the Chief Minister of Kerala and the recovery Notice dated 09.10.1997 are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. The said judgment was again followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors., wherein, the law laid down in Thomas Daniel (supra) was reiterated and the recoveries were quashed. 5. Keeping in view the settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment passed in Jogeswar Sahoo (supra) on 04.04.2025 as well as Thomas Daniel (supra),we find no reason to entertain this appeal. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. 6. The appeal is dismissed.” 3. As the facts of the present case are being similar to the case of Udai Ram Verma (supra), the present appeal is also dismissed in terms of the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in the case of Udai Ram Verma (supra). The observations/directions therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. 4. All pending misc. applications stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA), J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), ACJ Himanshu Soni/9