Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHAN GOPAL versus STATE & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KRISHAN GOPAL v STATE & ORS - CW Case No. 2514 of 2000 [2006] RD-RJ 3180 (11 December 2006)

//1//

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2514/2000

KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Date: 11.12.2006.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

Mr. S.C. Mittal for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Addl. GA for the State.

****

The petitioner was working as Surveyor in the

Ravine Proclamation Project, Kota and on completion of 28 years of service he has been given the selection scale but the same has been withdrawn vide impugned order dated 24.03.2000 as the scale was wrongly fixed and the excess payment which has been paid to the petitioner is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1994(4) SLR 614. He further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Narayan, decided on 19.04.2001 and reported in 2001(3) WLN 203. //2//

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is not withdrawal of the selection scale but it is correction of the mistake which has been committed. The petitioner has been given a wrong pay scale and he should be fixed in the scale of 1640-2900, 2000-3200 after completion of 18-27 years of service, whereas the benefit of selection scale in the scale of 2000-3200 and 2000-3500 has been given.

In the light of the ratio decided by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, if excess amount is paid without any fault of the employee, the same cannot be recovered from him. Considering this fact, prior to the order impugned dated 24.03.2000, whatever amount is paid to the petitioner, cannot be recovered from the petitioner, but after correction of the pay scale vide order dated 24.03.2000, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the excess payment beyond the period of 24.03.2000. If any payment is made which is not admissible to the petitioner can be recovered, but prior to 24.03.2000 no recovery with regard to excess payment can be made from the petitioner.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.