MEKHA RAM AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

MEKHA RAM AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

The amounts paid to the appellants pursuant to the Single Judge's order (treating the training period as deputation/allowing pay) were not paid by mistake but under a court order that was subsequently set aside; applying the principle of restitution and Section 144 CPC, the amounts paid in excess are recoverable by the State. The Court upheld the Division Bench's reservation of liberty to recover the excess amounts and directed recovery in thirty-six equal monthly installments to be deducted from salary commencing April 2022.

Parties
Appellants: Mekha Ram and others; Respondents: State of Rajasthan and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench
Outcome
Appeals disposed of; Division Bench order permitting recovery upheld in substance and repayment directed
Legal Topics
Restitution, Study Leave, Deputation, Recovery of Excess Payments, Section 144 CPC
Service Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Restitution Study Leave Deputation Recovery of Excess Payments Section 144 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mekha Ram and others

Appellants

State of Rajasthan and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amounts paid to in-service candidates pursuant to a Single Judge order treating study leave as deputation, and later set aside by a Division Bench, are recoverable by the State
  2. 2 Whether the decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih bars recovery from Class III/IV employees where excess payments were not made by mistake
  3. 3 Applicability of the principle of restitution and Section 144 CPC to amounts paid pursuant to an order later set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The amounts paid to the appellants pursuant to the Single Judge's order (treating the training period as deputation/allowing pay) were not paid by mistake but under a court order that was subsequently set aside; applying the principle of restitution and Section 144 CPC, the amounts paid in excess are recoverable by the State. The Court upheld the Division Bench's reservation of liberty to recover the excess amounts and directed recovery in thirty-six equal monthly installments to be deducted from salary commencing April 2022.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of; Division Bench order permitting recovery upheld in substance and repayment directed

Orders

  • Amounts paid in excess pursuant to the Single Judge's order shall be recovered from the appellants in thirty-six equal monthly installments to be deducted from their salary commencing April, 2022.
  • No costs.