Judgment wp2224.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2224 OF 2017.
Dr. Dilipkumar s/o Nirmalkumar
Johrapurkar, Aged about 67 years,
Occ - Retired, resident of House
No. 587, Ladpura, Itwari, Nagpur
Tah. And District Nagpur. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Higher and Technical
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
Zero Miles, Nagpur.
3. Senior Accounts Officer,
Office of the Accountant General
(A&E)-II, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 01.
4. Sindhu Mahavidyalaya,
through its Principal, Panchpaoli Road,
Panchpaoli, Nagpur, Tah. And District
Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:07:30 :::
Judgment wp2224.17
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. M.R. Johrapurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. M.A. Barabde, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None for Respondent No.4.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) Heard learned counsel for the parties. With their consent and considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.
2. Petitioner stagnating from 01.01.2001, received stagnation benefits and then retired on 31.03.2010. Because of communication dated 18.03.2010, issued by the State Government, Joint Director of Education (Respondent no.2) has issued a communication dated 22.09.2010 to Principals of all non-government aided colleges and pointed out need for recovery of stagnation benefits. The said amount has been recovered on ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:07:30 ::: Judgment wp2224.17 3 06.05.2010, while releasing terminal / retiremental benefits.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in breach of principles of natural justice and for no apparent reason, the recovery has been ordered. He also points out that in various judgments delivered by this Court, communication dated 18.03.2010 and recoveries have been quashed and set aside. Division Bench at Aurangabad advised the Government to refund recovered amount to others also instead of forcing them to file petitions.
4. Learned A.G.P. submits that petitioner has given an undertaking that if and when fixation is found wrong, excess amount will be allowed to be recovered.
5. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that in the impugned order there is no reference to any such wrong fixation. On the contrary the said order no where demonstrates that eligibility or entitlement of petitioner was examined and he was found not eligible for stagnation benefits.
6. Communication dated 18.03.2010, may at the most force recovery of excess paid, where there is wrongful payment. Here respondents have not ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:07:30 ::: Judgment wp2224.17 4 invited attention of the Court to any order which holds that the stagnation benefit has been paid to petitioner wrongfully. Undertaking obtained from petitioner is part of standard format and it has no relevance in present background.
7. Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9054/2010 and 2868/2011, decided on 22.08.2010 at Aurangabad has quashed and set aside such recovery and directed respondents to return the deducted amount within a period of three months along with interest at 12% p.a. Other Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 1054/2010 and other connected matters on 01.10.2013, has while extending the similar relief, also directed respondents to refund the amount to others in oder to avoid filing of several petitions in the High Court. Similar view is taken at Nagpur while deciding Writ Petition No. 3963/2014 on 23.09.2014. We do not wish to multiply the instances.
9. In this situation, we find the recovery unsustainable. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the amount recovered from petitioner and to refund it to him within a period of three months from today. The said amount shall carry interest @ 12% from ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:07:30 ::: Judgment wp2224.17 5 the date of its recovery till its realization.
10. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:07:30 :::