RADHE SHYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of watchman/class-IV employee on daily wages. Thereafter, his service was terminated by the respondents. Against such action of the respondents, the petitioner approached to this Court by way of filling S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2389/1991 and the same was allowed by this Court vide its order dtd. 4/12/1991 by observing thus:- The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. Termination of service of the petitioner with effect from 15/6/91 is declared as illegal and void. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of equal pay for equal work and on the basis of that principle, he is entitled to be paid salary in regular pay scale of Class IV employees with effect from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 15/4/1991. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be paid salary in the regular pay scale of Class IV employees with effect from 15/4/1991 by being fixed at the minimum of the scale. The petitioner shall be paid Dearness Allowance. If any other allowance is admissible under the Rules, the same shall also be paid to the petitioner. Arrears of the salary should also be paid to the petitioner within three months of the date of presentation of copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs."

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents granted regular pay to the petitioner w.e.f 15/4/1991 and thereafter, grade increments were also given to him w.e.f. 15/4/1991. Counsel submits that all of a sudden, respondents passed the impugned order on 25/5/2002 and the decision was taken to recover the amount and benefits given to the petitioner w.e.f. 15/4/1991 on the pretext that the service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 15/8/1996, hence the petitioner is not entitled to get the above benefits. Counsel submits that it is settled proposition of law that if any amount is received by the employee without any fault of his own and if the amount is ordered to be recovered by the Department, then the same amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. Counsel submits that the amount which has been received by the petitioner between 15/4/1991 till 15/8/1996 cannot be allowed to be recovered.