Prakash S/O Vitthalrao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1677 Bom

                                                            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.

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.

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