Bombay High Court
Kanta W/O. Sharad Badhiye vs Zilla Parishad Nagpur Thr. Chief ... on 8 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.1668.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 1668/2016
Kanta w/o Sharad Badhiye
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation : NIL (Retd. from service)
R/o New Bidipeth, Near Corporation School
Post Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur
Pine Code 440024 ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
Through its Chief Executive officer
Civil Lines, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
2) Senior Finance officer
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur (Finance Department)
Civil Lines, Nagpur,Dist. Nagpur. .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr.Sachin Khandekar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Shaikh Majid, Advocate for respondents
...........................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 8th August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard
heard finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the
wp.1668.16
action on the part of the respondent no.2 Senior Finance Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur in recovering the amount of Rs.1,51,826/- from the retiral
benefits of the petitioner, is bad in law and the respondents may be directed to
return the amount to the petitioner, with interest.
According to the petitioner at the time of her retirement, the
respondent-Zilla Parishad deducted an amount of Rs.1,51, 826/- from her
retiral dues, solely on the ground that the said amount was wrongfully paid
to her, in excess of her salary, for the period from 1996 to 2014. The petitioner
stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.6.2014 and after
she attained the age of superannuation, the said amount was sought to be
recovered from her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore,
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, to seek the aforesaid
declaration and a direction against the respondents to return the amount to
the petitioner.
Shri Shaikh Majid, the learned counsel for the respondents 1
and 2 submitted that the said amount was recovered from the petitioner in
October 2014 and the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition belatedly, on
23.2.2016. It is stated that the petitioner was the Headmistress for some
time and the petitioner was surely aware that the amount that she was
receiving towards her salary/pay-scale, was not payable to her. It is stated
that since the petitioner was signing the salary bills every month from 1996
wp.1668.16
to 2014, the direction as sought, may not be granted.
In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to uphold
the objection raised on behalf of the Respondent-Zilla Parishad in declining
the relief to the petitioner. We may consider the objection in regard to delay
in an appropriate case, where the party approaches this Court after several
years seeking a direction against the concerned respondent to refund the
amount that was wrongfully recovered from him/ her, by placing reliance on
the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). However, we are not inclined
to uphold the said objection in this case as though the petitioner retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2014, the said amount is
recovered from the petitioner in October, 2014. Thereafter, it appears that the
petitioner was making representations, seeking information in respect of the
said deductions. Even assuming that the representations were not made, we
do not find that the period of one year could be said to be a delay, that would
result in dismissal of the petition on the ground of laches. We would have
considered such an objection if an employee approaches this Court, seeking a
direction to refund the amount that was wrongfully recovered before three
years or more. Also, we do not find any merit in the other submission made
on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner being the Headmistress, she
was aware as to what should be her salary or what should be the salary of the
Assistant Teacher. We are inclined to reject this submission as at no point of
time the petitioner had asked the respondents to pay a particular salary to
wp.1668.16
her. The pay-scale was determined and fixed by the Pay Unit of the Zilla
Parishad and the petitioner and other employees were merely asked to sign
their bills at the end of every month. If that be so, it cannot be said that the
petitioner had misrepresented while seeking higher pay-scale. In fact, we find
that there is total lethargy on the part of the respondents in detecting the fault
in payment of higher pay-scale to the petitioner after more than 18 years. A
higher pay scale is said to have been paid to the petitioner with effect from
1996 and the said amount was sought to be recovered only after the
respondents detected the said mistake in 2014. We even do not know, whether
a higher amount was paid to the petitioner at all. In the circumstances of the
case, we are inclined to direct the respondents to return the amount to the
petitioner, in view of the judgment cited supra.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,51,826/- to the petitioner
within four weeks.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
wp.1668.16
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare
P.S.
Uploaded on: 10.08.2016.
