Bombay High Court
Shri. Durvas S/O. Ramchandra ... vs The State Of Maha., Through Its ... on 14 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1409WP5622.15-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5622 OF 2015
PETITIONERS :- 1) Shri Durvas s/o Ramchandra Jangde, Age:
60 years, occ: Retired, R/o 93, Indranagar,
New Narsala Road, Jagruti Society, Post
Mhalginagar, Nagpur.
2) Shri Ashok s/o Uttamrao Nagdale, Age: 64
years, Occ: Retired, R/o Plot No.85, Sanjay
Gandhi Nagar, Ring Road, Nagpur.
3) Shri Ramkrushana s/o Govindrao Chaple,
ig Age: 59 years, Occ: Retired, R/o Plot No.33,
Ramna Maroti Nagar, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through
Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2) The Director General of Police, Mumbai.
3) The Commissioner of Police, Civil Line,
Nagpur.
4) Accounts Officer/P.R. 1, 9, Office of the
Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement)
-II, Maharashtra, Nagpur-440 001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. D. R. Rupnarayan, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.A.M.Kadukar, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 14.09.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
1409WP5622.15-Judgment 2/4
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the
respondents to refund the amount of Rs.82,099/- to the petitioner No.1,
Rs.23,596/- to the petitioner No.2 and Rs.82,352/- to the petitioner No.3, that
was wrongly deducted from their retiral dues, towards the excess payment
made to the petitioners due to the wrongful fixation of the pay scale.
3. Shri D.R. Rupnarayan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states
that the issue involved in this case stands answered in favour of the petitioners
by the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. It
is stated that the amount wrongfully paid to the petitioners, in excess, while
they were in service, was not paid to them, in view of a misrepresentation or a
demand made by the petitioners. It is stated that it is well settled by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an amount mistakenly paid to an
employee, in excess, cannot be recovered after the retirement of the employee,
if the same is not paid to him due to his misrepresentation. It is stated that
since the issue involved in this case stands answered in favour of the
petitioners in view of the aforesaid judgment, the prayer made by the
petitioners needs to be granted.
4. Shri A. M. Kadukar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, does not dispute that an amount
wrongfully paid to the employee, while in employment, towards salary or any
other benefit cannot be recovered after the retirement of the employee. It is
fairly admitted that the petitioners had not misrepresented the respondents
1409WP5622.15-Judgment 3/4
Authorities, while securing the excess payments, while in service. It is stated
that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
5. Since the issue involved in this case stands answered in favour of
the petitioner by the judgment, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, it would be
necessary to hold that the respondents were not entitled to recover the amount
of Rs.82,099/-, Rs.23,596/- and Rs.82,352/- from the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and
3 respectively, after their retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
it would be inequitable to recover such payments that are made to the
employees, while in service, after the retirement of the employees. Merely
because the petitioners had received the amount, in excess, while in service,
on a mistaken belief of the respondents that the petitioners were entitled to
the same, the said amount could not have been recovered from the petitioners.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to refund a sum of Rs.82,099/- to the petitioner
No.1, Rs.23,596/- to the petitioner No.2 and Rs. 82,352/- to the petitioner
No.3 within eight weeks. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
1409WP5622.15-Judgment 4/4
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 16/09/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
