1 wp249.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.249/2016
Prakash s/o Vitthalrao Shantalwar,
aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o Sonapur Complex,Panchavati Nagar,
Ward No.14, Gadchiroli, Tq. Dist.
Gadchiroli. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Rural Water Supply Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Gadchiroli,
Tq. Dist. Gadchiroli.
3. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Geneal)
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, Tq. Dist. Gadchiroli.
4. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Mechanical, Rural Water Supply Scheme,
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
Tq. Dist. Gadchiroli. ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. P. Chaware, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1
Mr. Sachin Zoting, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :- APRIL 20, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:02:51 :::2 wp249.16.odt Mr. Chaware, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue involved in this writ petition was also involved in Writ Petition No.255/2016 and this Court has, by the judgment dated 06.04.2016, upheld the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners therein that the recovery of the excess amount wrongly paid to the petitioners therein could not have been made by the respondents when the petitioners were on the verge of retirement. It is stated that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2015 and the impugned order seeking recovery of the amount wrongly paid to the petitioner in excess could not have been passed when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement. It is stated that an identical issue is answered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment dated 06.04.2016.
Mr. Ambarish Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Sachin Zoting, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 do not dispute the statement made on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated that in almost identical set of facts, this Court has quashed a similar order seeking recovery of the amount that was wrongly paid in excess to the petitioners in the decided cases.
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:02:51 :::3 wp249.16.odt Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 06.04.2016 in Writ Petition No.255/2016, we allow this writ petition.
The impugned order dated 02.06.2015 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) kahale ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:02:51 :::