Dr. Vasant Waman Kharche And ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Sect., Higher ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6148 Bom

        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

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

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