Bombay High Court
Mr. Rajdev Ramnaresh Yadav vs Chacha Nehru Hindi High School And ... on 30 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
dgm 1 4-wp-11070-14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11070 OF 2014
Mr. Rajdev Ramnaresh Yadav .... Petitioner
vs
1 Chacha Nehru Hindi High School
and Bhagwan Mahavir Girls College,
Bhivandi
2 Sahayogi Shikshan Sangh
3 The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Thane
4 The Superintendent,
Pay & Audit Unit, Zilha Parishad,
Thane .... Respondents
Mr. Mandar Limaye for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar A. Joshi for respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for respondents 3 and 4.
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : June 30, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J.) :
1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved
by the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not paying the retiral
1/5
::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2017 00:21:28 :::
dgm 2 4-wp-11070-14.sxw
benefits to the Petitioner and not fixing the pension of the Petitioner.
3 The Petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant
Teacher on 16.09.1980. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was
possessing the qualification of B.A. C.P.Ed. The appointment of the
Petitioner was duly approved by the Education Officer by order dated
21.11.1980.
4 While in service, the Petitioner bettered his qualification
and obtained a degree in B.P. Ed in the year 1993. The Petitioner
superannuated in November 2013.
5 Since the Petitioner did not receive the retiral benefits and
since his pension was not fixed, he made an inquiry and on inquiry, he
was told that the Education Officer has directed the school to recover
the amount from the salary of the Petitioner vice communication
dated 18.10.2014 and as such, his retiral benefits were not paid and
pension was not fixed. In these premises, the Petitioner has
approached this Court.
2/5
::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2017 00:21:28 :::
dgm 3 4-wp-11070-14.sxw
6 Heard Mr. Limaye, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. Yadav, learned AGP for the Respondent/State.
7 In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State, it is
stated that since the Petitioner has obtained the C.P.Ed degree after
31.05.1971 he was not entitled to the pay-scale of a trained teacher
and he would be entitled to the pay-scale of trained teachers only if he
obtains a B.Ed degree. It is stated in the affidavit that the amount
which has been illegally paid to the Petitioner on account of wrong
fixation is liable to be deducted from the terminal benefits of the
Petitioner.
8 We find that the stand taken by the Respondents-
Authorities is not sustainable in law. Undoubtedly, the Petitioner has
not suppressed anything. The Petitioner had disclosed what his
qualification was at the time of his appointment. After disclosure of
his qualification, he was given an appointment order and his
appointment was duly approved by the Eduction Authorities. It is not
as if that the Petitioner can be held responsible for erroneous fixation.
3/5
::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2017 00:21:28 :::
dgm 4 4-wp-11070-14.sxw
The Apex Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and ors. v. State of Bihar and ors.1
has held that if an excess amount is paid to an employee on account of
erroneous fixation of salary for the reasons not attributable to him,
then recovery of such amount is not permissible.
9 In the present case, the Respondents-Authorities merrily
permitted the Petitioner to get retired and after his retirement, almost
after a period of one year, they woke up from the slumber to realise
that in the year 1980, his pay fixation was done erroneously. We find
that the stand is totally contrary to the law laid down by the Apex
Court.
10 In that view of the matter, we find that impugned
communication dated 18.10.2014 is not sustainable in law.
11 Rule is, therefore, made absolute in the following terms:
ORDER
(i) Communication dated 18.10.2014 issued by
Respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside.
1 (2009) 3 SCC 475
dgm 5 4-wp-11070-14.sxw
(ii) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to
prepare the necessary papers for grant of terminal
benefits and fixation of pension to the Petitioner on the
basis of last drawn salary of the Petitioner within a
period of two weeks from today.
(iii) On receipt of the said papers, Respondents
3 and 4 shall process the same and shall ensure that
the pension is paid to the Petitioner actually from the
month of August 2017.
(iv) The arrears, as per the orders passed
hereinabove, along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum shall be paid within a period of six months from
today.
(v) Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(vi) No costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) (B. R. GAVAI J.)
