wp2280.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2280 OF 2016.
PETITIONERS: 1. Dr.Vasant Waman Kharche,
aged about 65 years, r/o 103, Shridhar
Apartments, 55, Suyog Nagar, Ring Road,
Nagpur - 440015.
2. Vinayak Gangaram Tarode,
aged about 64 years, r/o 7, Vidyanagri
Anandawan, Warora, Distt.Chandrapur-
442914.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS:1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Higher and
Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Jt.Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Senior Accounts Officer,
Office of the Accountant General
(A & E)- II, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01.
4. Sindhu Mahavidyalaya,
through its Principal, Pachpaoli,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:51:05 :::
wp2280.16 2
5. Anand Niketan College,
Anandwan, Warora, Chandrapur,
through its Principal.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.Bhushan Mohata, Advocate for the petitioners.
Smt.K.R.Deshpande, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE: 18th OCTOBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners impugn the communications addressed by the respondent dated 27 th of May, 2013 and 22nd of February, 2011, thereby seeking to recover the amount of stagnation increment from the pension account of the petitioners after their retirement.
3. The petitioners were employees of colleges affiliated to ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:51:05 ::: wp2280.16 3 the universities. The respondent - State had given the benefits on account of stagnation of the services of the petitioners vide Government Resolution dated 25th of January, 1999. However, it appears that subsequently, it was realised by the State Government that the petitioners were not entitled to stagnation allowance and as such the impugned communications were issued, thereby seeking to recover the amount from the pension account of the petitioners.
4. By now, it is a settled position of law that recovery from the salary/pension of an employee cannot be made, if the amount in excess was paid to such an employee for the reasons not attributed to such an employee. It is not the case of the respondents that the stagnation amount was paid to the petitioners on account of any mis-representation made by them.
5. In that view of the matter, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and ors. ..vs.. State of ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:51:05 ::: wp2280.16 4 Bihar and ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475, the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. The impugned communication dated 27th of May, 2013 and 22nd of February, 2011, are therefore quashed and set aside. It is held that the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount from the pension of the petitioners. Insofar as the amount which is already recovered from the pension of the petitioners, it is directed that such amount shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of three months from today along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid therms, however, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:51:06 :::
wp2280.16 5
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:51:06 :::