Bombay High Court
Babasaheb Prabhu Bhalerao vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 12 April, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 6912.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6912 OF 2014
Shri Babasaheb S/o Prabhu Bhalerao,
Age - 59 years, Occu. - Nil,
R/o Sanmitra Colony,
Behind Tahasil Office, Partur,
Tal.-Partur, Dist.- Jalna. .. Petitioner
Versus
1] Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its
Dy. General Manager, [P& IR]
State Transport Central Office,
Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan,
Mumbai. 400008.
2] Chef Employment Officer,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, State Transport
Central Office, Maharashtra
Vahatuk Bhavan, Mumbai. 400008.
3] Chief Account Officer,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, State Transport
Central Office, Maharashtra
Vahatuk Bhavan, Mumbai. 400008.
4] Regional Manager,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Aurangabad Region,
Aurangabad.
5] Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2017 00:35:56 :::
2 wp 6912.14
Corporation, Jalna Region,
Jalna.
6] Assits. Audit Officer,
IAP Aurangabad Region,
MSRTC, Aurangabad. .. Respondents
Shri S. V. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 are served.
Shri D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 12TH APRIL, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, from the gratuity
amount/retiral benefits payable to the petitioner, respondents
have deducted Rs. 1,00,000/- on the ground that excess amount
was paid to the petitioner while in service and also some amount
from the salary which is paid during the last year of his
retirement.
3. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was
working as a Head Clerk/Supervisor. The same is a Class - III
post. The learned counsel submits that, if the employee is on the
verge of retirement or has retired and belongs to Class - III
3 wp 6912.14
category, the recovery cannot be claimed on the ground that
while in service some excess amount was paid. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of
State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
4. Mr. Bagul, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5
submits that, from 1998 till 2012 some excess amount was paid
to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay. The same is
recovered from the gratuity amount and also from the salary
during his last year of employment. According to the learned
counsel, the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the
Labour Court. Notional increment was given to the petitioner,
which was not applicable at all. It was found that Rs. 1,00,000/-
has been paid excess to the petitioner, as such recovery was
rightly claimed.
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner on attaining age of
superannuation has retired on 31.10.2013. An amount of Rs.
60,000/- has been deducted after his retirement from gratuity
amount and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is recovered from his
salary, which is paid during the last year of his retirement.
6. It is not a case of respondent No. 5 that, the petitioner had
played any fraud or is guilty of misrepresentation while notional
increment was awarded to the petitioner. It is also not the case
4 wp 6912.14
of respondents that the petitioner had given any undertaking to
the respondents that in case subsequently it is found on account
of some wrong increments are given, the petitioner would repay
the said amount. The amount is recovered from the retiral
benefits after his retirement and also from the salary during the
year of his retirement. The petitioner belongs to Class - III
category i. e. group C.
7. In the light of the above, the judgment of the Apex Court in
a case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
and others referred to supra would squarely apply. The
respondents would be dis-entitled to recover the said amount.
8. In the light of the above, we pass following order.
9. The respondents shall refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
deducted by it to the petitioner within a period of four (04)
months from today. It is submitted that, pension is also not been
disbursed to the petitioner. The respondents shall take effective
steps to pay the retiral benefits/pension as may be admissible to
the petitioner expeditiously.
10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/April 17
