'Treated Himself Above Law': Rajasthan High Court Fines Ayurveda Dept Director ₹50,000 For Defying Orders Halting Pension Benefit Recovery

Rajasthan High Court imposed a personal cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Director of the Directorate Of Ayurved, Department Of Ayurved And Bhartuya Chikitsa of the State Government for non-adherence of court orders halting recovery of pension benefits. 

The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania was hearing a petition wherein the petitioner had challenged the order of the respondent-Director directing initiation of recovery of pension benefits of the petitioner.

It was the case of the petitioner that an earlier petition was filed by him against such an order which was allowed, and special appeal before the division bench was dismissed. Furthermore, in an identical matter, the SLP filed by the respondent-department was sub-judice in the Supreme Court, wherein the apex court had said that "in case any amount has already been paid to the respondent, the same shall not be recovered during pendency of the petition". 

Despite the above-mentioned background and the earlier order attaining finality, the respondent-director had issued the order for stoppage of regular pension of the petitioner and recovery of excess amount paid. This order was challenged before the Court.

The Court opined that the actions of the respondent-officer were “serious and contemptuous”. Furthermore, the fact that the concerned respondent was still trying to justify his conduct before the Court was observed to be “highly unsatisfactory and unjustified”.

It was highlighted that the challenged order was withdrawn. However, the Court held that despite such withdrawal, the fact of issuance was not only illegal but also contemptuous.

The Court observed that such conduct on part of the respondent-director, despite being fully aware of the previous round of litigation, could not be taken lightly as it reflected that the respondent had no respect for the order of the Court.

“Despite the adjudication of the issue, the concerned Officer treated himself to be above law and issued the impugned order as discussed above.”

In this background, the Court held that since the challenged order was withdrawn, the matter could be disposed of, but imposed a cost of Rs. 50 thousand on the respondent-director to be recovered from his salary and deposited with the Bar Association for the Welfare of the Advocates.

Title: Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 186

Click Here To Read/Download Order