[2026:RJ-JP:264-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 54/2019 Jamuna Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Brij Lal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 431, Tilak Nagar, Near Hiradas, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur. 2. Executive Director, (Administration), Rsrtc, Jaipur. 3. General Manager, Bharatpur Depot, Rsrtc, Bharatpur. 4. Chief Manager, Bharatpur Depot, Rsrtc, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal with Mr. Ayush Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 07/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted selection scale after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the respondents wrongfully revised the selection scale and pursuant to the revised pay fixation, a recovery order dated 24.10.2016 was issued. In compliance thereof, an amount [2026:RJ-JP:264-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-54/2019] of Rs. 3,21,411/- was recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that no recovery can be effected from the retiral benefits of an employee when the wrong fixation was made due to an error committed by the officers of the respondents-Department and there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010), decided on 02.05.2022, wherein para No. 9, it has been held as under:- “(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud 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 payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.” [2026:RJ-JP:264-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-54/2019] 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-petitioner and submits that the earlier writ petition challenging the revised pay fixation order had already been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and lastly prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, there was no fault on the part of the appellant and it was only on account of wrong fixation made by the Officers of the respondents-Department, secondly, if the respondents-Department have wrongly interpreted the rule while making wrong fixation of the appellant, the appellant cannot be held liable for the same and no recovery can be made from the appellant in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thomas Daniel (supra). 7. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order of recovery issued by the respondents-Department dated 24.10.2016 are hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,21,411/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellant within a period of two months from today. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /16