High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 04 RAJ CK 0107

Poona vs Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Pra. Nigam Ltd. & Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 24 April 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Mehta
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
14693 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

36 paragraphs · 332 words

IA No.2026/2017.

1.

The present application has been filed by the petitioner inter

alia seeking early hearing of the case.

2.

Mr. Vyas submits that the controversy in question is squarely

covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of

Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC

334 and recent judgment of this Court in the matter of Mukun

Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State & Ors. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5553/2014 decided on 12.04.2017.

3.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is

allowed.

4.

With the consent of the both the parties, the matter is taken

up for consideration today itself.

5.

Mr. S.K.M. Vyas submits that the order dated 13.03.2012

seeking to a sum of Rs.84,425, on the ground of erroneous

fixation and the consequential recovery of amount of Rs.84,425/-

is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme

Court rendered in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih

and recent judgment of this Court in the matter of Mukun Singh

Rajpurohit Vs. State & Ors. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5553/2014 decided on 12.04.2017.

6.

Mr. Sunil Purohit, counsel for the respondent, despite his

efforts has not been able to point out any distinction in the

present case.

7.

As such the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned

dated 13.03.2012, recovering the amount from the petitioner is

quashed and set aside. The amount in dispute Rs.84,425/-

recovered from the petitioner on 30.03.2012 be refunded to him

within a period of two months from today, along with interest @

9% per annum from the date of recovery.

8.

Needless to observe that the order impugned has been

quashed and set aside only in relation to recovery of the amount

already paid to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not

challenged the prayer No.2 in relation to re-fixation, the refixation

as done, vide order dated 12.03.2012 shall remain in force.

9.

Writ petition allowed in part.