The Supreme Court laid light on the principle of restitution in Mekha Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. The Hon’ble Court observed that no one can be permitted to take the benefit of a wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by a higher forum.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan had quashed and set aside the judgments and orders filed by the Single Bench while holding that the three year course by the in-service candidates could not be treated as a period of deputation but as periods of leave.

The original writ petitioners were working as Auxiliary Nursing & Midwives, accounts clerks etc. They applied for the course of General Nursing Training which is of three years duration. They joined the course, knowing too well that it lasted three years. After that, they filed writ petitions before the SIngle Bench to treat the study leave as deputation, which the learned Court allowed.

The State preferred an appeal in front of the Division Bench which set aside the Single Bench’s judgment. The Division Bench held that the period shall not be treated as a period of deputation but only as a period of leave. Therefore, the original petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court placed reliance on Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal for the principle of restitution. The principle of restitution is founded on the idea of doing complete justice at the end of litigation. It is a remedy against unjust enrichment or unjust benefit. 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. 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.

The Apex Court also held that the precedent of Rafiq Masih would not be applicable as the amount in excess was not paid mistakenly but was paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge under the threat of contempt proceedings. When it was set aside, the State shall be entitled to recover the amount paid in excess.