High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 12 RAJ CK 0019

Mangi Lal vs A.V.V.N.L. and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 16 December 2013 · Citation: (2014) 2 CDR 780

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Bishnoi, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 1345 of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 344 words

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.01.2012 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vidhyut Bhawat, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, whereby an amount of Rs. 78,056/- was ordered to be recovered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not want to press the relief in respect of the withdrawal of the grade increment and refixation made pursuant thereto, however, the amount already paid to the petitioner pursuant to the advance increment cannot be permitted to be recovered. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already retired from service in the year 2011.

2.

It is not disputed before this Court that the benefit of advancement increment was extended to the petitioner by the respondents on their own and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner in the matter of grant of increment as aforesaid. Obviously, the amount paid to the petitioner by way of advance increment must have been spent by him and therefore, even if the withdrawal of advance increment and refixation of the petitioner''s pay, is held to be valid, the recovery of the amount already paid at this stage, when the petitioner has already retired from service, does not appear to be justified more so when, the grant of advance increment was a conscious decision of the respondents and the petitioner is not at fault in any manner whatsoever. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned to the extent directing the recovery of the amount of Rs. 78,056/- from the gratuity amount of the petitioner, is quashed. It is made clear that if the amount pursuant to the impugned order has already been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner then, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.