State of Rajasthan Versus Ram Narayan

2001 SCC OnLine Raj 368

Facts :
The respondent was a Physical Teacher Grade III. He was paid advance increment for B.P.Ed
but later on by an order dated 31.7.98, the District Education Officer (Petitioner No.3),
ordered recovery of the excess amount of Rs.2000/- paid to the respondent No.1. The ground
stated by the officer was that the said amount was paid in excess during the last six years.
The same was challenged by the respondent before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate
Tribunal Bench at Jodhpur. The said appeal was allowed by the tribunal and it relied on the
judgment of Shyambabu v. Union of India, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if
the excess amount is paid without any fault of the person, then the same cannot be later on
recovered from him.

Legal Issue :
The main issue raised in the case was related to recovery of ad-hoc relief given and excess
amount paid to the employees. The issue before the court was whether the state government
can order recovery of excess amount paid without any fault of the employee on the ground
that it was paid by mistake.

Arguments Advanced by Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat (Counsel for Respondent Teacher)

It was contended by Mr.Bhandawat that this petition was squarely covered against the
petitioners by division bench judgment of this Court in case of Premlata Gaur v. State of
Raj1.It was argued by Mr. Sandeep that Premlata Gaur’s case had a similar factual scenario
wherein it was challenged before this court the impugned order dated 8.10.1974 (Annex.3)
passed by the Dy. Inspector of Schools (Girls), Jodhpur fixing her salary at Rs. 105/- per
month with effect from 1.10.1974 and also order dated 8.10.1974 (Annex.4) whereby
deduction at the rate of Rs. 35/- has been ordered to be made from her salary every month on
the ground that excess salary was paid to her. It was held by the court that it was held that, “if
the excess salary is paid to the person and there was no mistake on the part of the Teacher
and particularly when recovery against others was dropped in view of the earlier decision of
the High Court, then the State Government cannot be permitted to recover such excess

1
Premlata Gaur v. State of Raj, 2001 (1) WLC 287.
amount paid to the other teachers.” Further Mr.Bhandawat relied upon the judgement of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyambabu v. Union of India2, where it was held by
the court that since the petitioners received the higher scale for no fault of theirs, it shall only
be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. If the excess
amount is paid without any fault of the person, then the same cannot be later on recovered
from him.( Position reaffirmed in case of Ajay Jadhav v. Government of Goa3, Gabriel Saver
Fernandes & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors 4, V. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Director &
Ors5).

Decision of Court :
It was held by the court that Learned counsel Mr. Bhandawat was right in submitting that this
petition was squarely covered in favour of the respondent No. 1 by the division bench
judgment of this Court in Premlata's case. The court was of the opinion that if the excess
amount is paid without any fault of the employee, then the same cannot be later on recovered
from him particularly when the recovery against others was dropped by State Government
itself.

2
Shyambabu v. Union of India,1994 SCC (2) 521.
3
Ajay Jadhav v. Government of Goa, (1999) 9 SCC 4.
4
Gabriel Saver Fernandes & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors , 1995 Supp (1) SCC 149.
5
V. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Director & Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 139.