TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt paid to the original writ petitioners treating the period of training as a period of leave permissible to him/her in easy equal installments, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals. 2. That the original writ petitioners are working either as ANM (Auxiliary Nursing & Midwifery) or Lab Technician, Multi-Purpose Worker, Accounts Clerk or other similarly situated posts. They are the members of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965. They applied for the course of General Nursing Training which is of three years duration and is regulated according to the General Nursing Training Course Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1990'). 2.1 That all the original writ petitioners submitted their applications, in the prescribed proforma as in-service candidates, seeking admission to the course of General Nursing as envisaged under Rule 9 of the Rules 1990. That all the in-service candidates were required to be considered eligible to seek admission provided they fulfilled the criterion for admission and eligibility under Rule 11 of the Rules 1990. All the original writ petitioners submitted their applications for seeking study l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applications before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed. Subsequently, the State again filed intra-court appeals before the Division Bench against the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petitions and holding that the original writ petitioners are entitled to treat their period of training as the period on leave permissible to him/her. By the impugned common judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the intra-court appeals and while approving the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge has held that the period spent on training course by the in-service candidates shall not be treated as a period on deputation and be treated only on leave whatever due to the candidates. That as during the pendency of the intra-court appeals, under threat of the contempt of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the original writ petitioners were paid the amount and holding that the period of training is to be treated as period on leave permissible to him/her, the Division Bench also directed that the State shall be at liberty to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issible in case of employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (Group C and Group D service). It is submitted that in the present case, it is not the case where the amount in excess was paid mistakenly by the State or the State authorities. Rather the excess amount was paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, under the threat of the contempt proceedings, which order has now been set aside by the Division Bench. It is submitted that once the order passed by the learned Single Judge, pursuant to which the original writ petitioners were paid the amount, came to be set aside by the Division Bench, the necessary consequences shall follow and on the principle of restitution, the State shall be entitled to recover the amount paid in excess. 5.1 Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 (paragraphs 334 to 336) and the decision of this Court in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 648 (paragraphs 25 to 30), on the principle of restitution. 5.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itution, has observed and held in paragraphs 335 to 336 as under: In re : Principle of restitution "335. The principle of restitution is founded on the ideal of doing complete justice at the end of litigation, and parties have to be placed in the same position but for the litigation and interim order, if any, passed in the matter. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. [South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P., (2003) 8 SCC 648], it was held that no party could take advantage of litigation. It has to disgorge the advantage gained due to delay in case lis is lost. The interim order passed by the court merges into a final decision. The validity of an interim order, passed in favour of a party, stands reversed in the event of a final order going against the party successful at the interim stage. Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not the fountain source of restitution. It is rather a statutory recognition of the rule of justice, equity and fair play. The court has inherent jurisdiction to order restitution so as to do complete justice. This is also on the principle that a wrong order should not be perpetuated by keeping it alive and respecting it. In e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factors as relative fault, the agreedupon risks, and the fairness of alternative risk allocations not agreed upon and not attributable to the fault of either party need to be weighed.' The principle of restitution has been statutorily recognised in Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 144 CPC speaks not only of a decree being varied, reversed, set aside or modified but also includes an order on a par with a decree. The scope of the provision is wide enough so as to include therein almost all the kinds of variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of a decree or order. The interim order passed by the court merges into a final decision. The validity of an interim order, passed in favour of a party, stands reversed in the event of a final decision going against the party successful at the interim stage. ... 27. ... This is also on the principle that a wrong order should not be perpetuated by keeping it alive and respecting it (A. Arunagiri Nadar v. S.P. Rathinasami [A. Arunagiri Nadar v. S.P. Rathinasami, 1970 SCC OnLine Mad 63] ). In the exercise of such inherent power, the courts have applied the principles of restitution to myriad situations not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2002) 1 SCC 319, it is observed and held that after the dismissal of the lis, the party concerned is relegated to the position which existed prior to the filing of the petition in the court which had granted the stay. 6.3 Even otherwise, 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. 7. Even, Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for restitution. Section 144 of the CPC reads as under: "144. Application for restitution - (1) Where and insofar as a decree or an order is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose, the Court which passed the decree or order shall, on the application of any party entitled in any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for such decree or order or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified; and....