Parties cannot take benefit of court order later set aside by higher court: Rajasthan High Court
The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judge, Justice M.R Shah in the case of Mekha Ram v State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No. 2229-2234 OF 2022) observed that parties cannot take benefit of court order later set aside by higher court.
BRIEF FACTS: Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgement and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench Jaipur and other connected appeals, by which the Division Bench of the High Court had allowed the said appeals and quashed and set aside the respective judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and held that the three years Nursing Course by the in-service candidates could not be treated as a period on deputation and be treated only on leave whatever due to the candidates and consequently has reserved the liberty in favour of the State to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners treating the period of training as a period of leave permissible to him/her in easy equal instalments, the original writ petitioners preferred the present appeals in this case.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT: At the outset, the court observed that the amount paid in excess to the appellants was not due to any mistake on the part of the State/State authorities. The court also remarked that no one can be permitted to take the benefit of the wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by the higher forum/court. As per the settled position of law, no party should be prejudiced because of the order of the court. The court observed that the Division Bench of the High Court was absolutely justified in reserving liberty in favour of the State to recover the amount paid in excess to the original writ petitioners. However, at the same time, considering the prayer made on behalf of the original writ petitioners to recover the amount in easy equal instalments, the court directed that whatever amount was paid in excess to the original writ petitioners, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, was to be recovered from the original writ petitioners in thirty-six equal monthly instalments, as deducted from their salary.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K