Bombay High Court
Shri Gopalkrishna Tukaram ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 11 July, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
904-WP-10074-15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10074 OF 2015
Shri Gopalkrishna Tukaram Dhopade ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP for the Respondent-State.
----------
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 11 July 2017
JUDGMENT (Per Riyaz I. Chagla, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of parties.
Sharayu. 1/7
904-WP-10074-15.doc
2. The Petitioner by the present Petition is claiming
refund of the amount of Rs. 1,56,445/- payable as on 24th
September 2012 with further interest at 12 percent per annum,
which amounts have been recovered by the Respondent from
the Petitioner and which amounts were payable as and by way
of stagnation increments.
3. The Petitioner was appointed as full time
Demonstrator for Chemistry in the Respondent No. 4 College
and thereafter, as Lecturer in 1975. On 1st October 1976 the
Petitioner was wrongly transferred to Junior College and hence
the Petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 779 of
1993 which was allowed on 2nd April 1993 and the Petitioner
was restored and continued as Lecturer in senior College with
effect from 1st July 1975. The Petitioner had been sanctioned
stagnation increment under the Government Resolution issued
by Respondent No.1 on 25th January 1999. On 10th March
2008, Respondent No. 1 issued a letter informing the Director of
Education that the scheme of stagnation increments under
Sharayu. 2/7
904-WP-10074-15.doc
Government Resolution was not applicable to teaching
employees of the Universities and affiliated Colleges.
Respondent No.5 issued letters to the Petitioner on 21st May
2008 directing him to refund the amount of stagnation
increment paid to him. The Petitioner protested to the
Respondent No. 5 against recovery of the stagnation increments
from the Petitioner. However, the Respondent No. 5 started
deducting the amounts from the monthly salary of the
Petitioner. One of the Teachers filed Writ Petition No. 2326 of
2008 before the Nagpur Bench of this Court to Challenge the
action of recovery of the stagnation increments. The Court on 12
June 2008 directed the parties to maintain status quo. The
Court had thereafter recorded the statement of the Government
in Writ Petition No. 2326 of 2008 that the proposal for granting
stagnation increments to the teachers is pending with Finance
Department and that necessary action in this regard will be
taken after consultation with Finance Department. This Court,
after recording the statement, disposed of the Writ Petition. The
Petitioner based on the said order of the Court made
Sharayu. 3/7
904-WP-10074-15.doc
representation to Respondent No. 5 requesting it to stop all
recovery and to pay the amount already recovered. The
Petitioner retired from the service of Respondent No. 5. The
Government recovered the amount of stagnation increments
paid to the Teachers from their salaries while in service and/or
from the retirement benefits after their retirement. This was
also done in the present case of the Petitioner.
4. In two Writ Petitions filed before Aurangabad Bench
of this Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 9054 of 2010 and 2868 of
2011, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22nd
August, 2011 allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the
impugned communication of the Government dated 10th March
2008 and 18th March 2010 under which the Government had
recovered the stagnation increments paid to the Teachers. The
Government was by the said order directed to return the
stagnation increment recovered from the Teachers within 3
months alongwith interest at 12% p.a.. The Petitioner made a
representation to Respondent No. 5 for refund of the stagnation
Sharayu. 4/7
904-WP-10074-15.doc
increments. Respondent No. 5 in turn sent a letter to
Respondent No. 2 to take action for refund of the said amount
recovered from the Petitioner. The Petitioner made further
representations, but without any response. Respondent No. 4
informed the Petitioner on 19 December 2014 that an amount of
Rs. 50,000/- had already been released. The Petitioner has not
received any such amount, nor has the amount been credited in
his bank account. The Petitioner not having been refunded the
amount as and by way of stagnation increments which was in
breach of the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench, filed the
present Petition.
5. Shri. Bandiwadekar, the learned Advocate for the
Petitioner has submitted that the present Petition is swuarely
covered by the order passed by this Bench on 20 June 2017
which followed the order and judgment dated 22 August 2011
passed by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court (Supra), whereby
the stagnation increments wrongly recovered were ordered to be
refunded to the Petitioner therein within a period of three
Sharayu. 5/7
904-WP-10074-15.doc
months from the date of the order along with interest at 12
percent per annum. Shri. Bandiwadekar has submitted that the
same order is required to be passed in the present Petition, as
recovery of the amount from the Petition on account of
stagnation increment is bad in law and should be quashed and
set aside as had been done by the order dated 28th June 2017.
7. We are of the considered view that the present
Petition is covered by order dated 28th June 2017 of this Bench
following the order and judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of
this Court, as the identical issue has been decided therein. We
are of the considered view that the recovery of the amounts
from the Petitioner on account of stagnation increment is bad in
law. We accordingly, allow the present Petition by passing the
following order.
ORDER
(a) It is held and declared that the recovery of the
amount paid to the Petitioner on account of
Sharayu. 6/7
904-WP-10074-15.doc
stagnation increment is bad in law and therefore,
quashed and set aside.
(b) The amount recovered from the pension of the
Petitioner is directed to be refunded to the Petitioner
within a period of three months from today
alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]
Sharayu. 7/7
