SHRAVAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was superannuated, and his pension was also fixed and paid. However, lateron the Department felt that the pension was wrongly fixed, therefore, it started to deduct the excess amount paid to the petitioner by way of pension. Not only that, they recovered from the gratuity also and not paid any amount of gratuity to the petitioner. The amount which was earned by the petitioner by way of gratuity cannot be recovered for the dues or the amount over -paid to the petitioner even it was paid by mistake.

(2.) MR . Tatia, learned Counsel for the respondent Department, on the basis of Rule 295(4)(a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short the Rules) submitted that the Government dues, outstanding against a Government servant at the time of retirement or found to be outstanding subsequent to the issue of final pension, may be recovered by the Government from the amount of pension/gratuity or both payable or paid to the Government servant or members of his family, as the case may be, irrespective of whether the consent of retired Government servant or members of his family has been obtained or not. Such rule is clearly ultra vires to the principle of natural justice.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Mr. Lodha for other respondents submitted that the excess amount paid to the petitioner could have been recovered from his pension, without extending an opportunity of hearing. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of v. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Director and Ors. : [1997]3SCR1043 . That was a case of a petitioner who was appointed as a Teacher who was entitled for only two increments but he was wrongly given more increments but he was wrongly given more increments. The recovery proceedings were initiated against him on the premise that he was not entitled to more than two advance increments. The facts on hand in this case are totally different. It is a case of a person who retired from service and his pension was also fixed. Later on if the Department felt that by mistake he was wrongly paid more amount, then first it should have issued the notice to the petitioner to prove that it was rightly fixed. The department could have taken final decision only after hearing the petitioner, and passed the order of recovering the amount from his pension or gratuity, if it was satisfied that earlier mistake was committed. Hence, the above judgment of Supreme Court has no application to the facts of this case.