Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Marotraoji Ganorkar, ... vs The Chief Executive Officer, ... on 24 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp872.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.872 OF 2016.
PETITIONER: Ashok s/o Marotraoji Ganorkar,
aged about 59 years, Occu: Retired
Teacher, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,
ig R/o Shambhu Nagar, Zingabai Takli,
Faras Chowk, Koradi Road, Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1) The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2) The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3) The Chief Accounts and Finance Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.V.S.Dhobe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Shaikh Majid, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE: 24th AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M.Deshpande, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of parties.
2.
By the present petition the petitioner, who is a retired
teacher of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, is challenging the action on the
part of the respondents of deducting an amount of Rs.1,06, 479/-
from the terminal benefits of the petitioner on account of wage
revision under 6th Pay Commission during the period 2006 to
2009. The orders impugned in the present petition are dated 15 th
of April, 2015 and 5th of June, 2015 issued by respondent no.2 -
Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri
V.S.Dhobe, the action on the part of the respondents to deduct the
amount which were credited in favour of the petitioner on
account of wage revision under 6 th Pay Commission for the period
2006 to 2009 cannot be deducted after a lapse of near about six
years from the date of retirement. He submitted that the action
cannot stand to the scrutiny of law. He relied upon the
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in AIR 2015 SC 696 (State of Punjab and ors. ..vs.. Rafiq Masih),
commonly known as 'White Washer' case to buttress his
submission for quashment of impugned orders.
4. The petitioner who was holding qualification of B.Sc.
B.Ed. was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1983 in a
school run by Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. After having served at
various places, the petitioner stood retired on 31 st of March, 2015
on attaining the age of superannuation. During the tenure of his
service the petitioner was also given temporary charge as in-
charge Headmaster of the High School of Zilla Parishad at Kamthi
and he stood retired in the said position.
On 22nd of May, 2007, the respondents accorded Senior
Grade Pay Scale to the petitioner. Pay fixation was accorded in
view of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commission. Accordingly, the amount
was received by the petitioner for the period of 2006 to 2009.
5. After attaining the age of superannuation when
petitioner stood retired, he was to get his retirement benefits such
as Provident Fund, Gratuity and monthly pension. The
respondent no.2 - Education Officer (Primary) passed an order on
15th of April, 2015 fixing the last retirement salary of the
petitioner as Rs.12,110/- per month and in the said order
deduction of an amount of Rs.1,06,479/- was shown.
Subsequently, a revised order dated 5th of June, 2015 was passed
by the said authority. In the said order also it was ordered to
deduct an amount of Rs.1,06,479/- from the gratuity payable to
the petitioner.
6. The petitioner sent a representation for revoking the
order of deduction but nothing was heard from the respondent
no.2 - Education Officer. Therefore, the petitioner has exercised
his right under the Right to Information Act and in pursuance to
the said, on 18th of September, 2015 it was informed to the
petitioner that while the petitioner was in service due to
inadvertently an amount of Rs.1,06, 479/- was paid in excess to
the petitioner towards salary and allowances, which has been
recovered.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent Shri Shaikh
Majid, as an Officer of the Court, has fairly stated that the
impugned orders cannot stand to the scrutiny of law in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the view that the present case is squarely covered by law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case cited supra. Further,
there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was in any
way responsible for the excess payment made to him during his
service career. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that
it would be extremely iniquitous to seek the refund of the
payment mistakenly made to the petitioner and deduct the said
amount from his retirement benefits.
9. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (i) of the petition. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
CERTIFICATE
I Certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : P.Z.Chute.
Uploaded on : 26/8/2016.
