Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1498 (RAJ)

K. N. Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-18

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-Heard at admission stage. 2. The instant petition has been fled by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to make payment of Rs. 31,032/-which was illegally recovered from the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. 3. Brief facts of the case are that after retirement of the petitioner, retiral benefits were not released and an illegal recovery was ordered from his salary alleging that an amount of Rs. 30,006/-was outstanding against him, therefore, he filed a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No. 4595/1993 and was disposed of vide order dated 012.1995. 4. After the Judgment of this Court, the Accounts Officer sent a communication dated 08.07.1994 (Annexure 1) to the Chief Engineer, CAD, Bikaner clarifying that the petitioner made a prayer for finalization of his matter with regard to the illegal recovery. 5.The District Collector, Bikaner also sent a letter to the Chief Engineer on 06.03.1994 for finalization of petitioners pension case. 6. On 25.05.1994, again a letter was sent by the Accounts Officer to the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 10451.63 is due and till adjustment of the said amount, his matter has been sent to the pension department for payment of pension and gratuity. 7. Vide letter dated 07.02.1996, it was informed that there is dues of Rs. 10,451.63 and the petitioner made a request for payment of his deducted amount and the same may be decided. 8. Thereafter, vide letter dated 210.1994, the petitioner was informed that he should contact the office of Chief Engineer for waiving the recovery. The accounts officer of the Irrigation Department sent a letter dated 25.07.1995 to the office of the Chief Engineer, CAD, IGNP, Bikaner for necessary action. 9. The petitioner also sent a representation on 01.04.1997 for redressal of his grievance. 10. The petitioner also sent a notice to the Chief Engineer on 02.07.1997, in which he has clarified the position and made a request for payment of the amount which was withheld by the Department. 11. The petitioner also made a representation on 12.05.1999 (Annexure 7) stating that deduction of Rs. 31,032/-has illegally been made from his pension and the same may be refunded. 12. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has submitted a number of representations for refund of the amount of Rs. 31,032/-. 11. The petitioner also made a representation on 12.05.1999 (Annexure 7) stating that deduction of Rs. 31,032/-has illegally been made from his pension and the same may be refunded. 12. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has submitted a number of representations for refund of the amount of Rs. 31,032/-. However, the same has been refunded, nor the respondents have issued any order as to why this recovery has been made. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner has made a number of representations, but his grievance has not been redressed so far, nor any speaking order has been passed, regarding the deduction made by the respondents. During the course of arguments, it has been requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner regarding the deduction of Rs. 31,032/-. Since, the request of the petitioner is only for consideration of the representation, therefore, the instant petition is disposed of , at this stage, by giving a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law only. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within a period of one month. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, may be passed.