Bombay High Court
Smt Archana Madhukarrao Barade vs Zilla Parishad Wardha Thru Its ... on 14 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1403WP5329.07-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5329 OF 2007
PETITIONER :- Smt. Archana wd of Madhukarrao Barade,
aged 35 years, Resident of Hinganghat,
tahsil - Hinganghat, District-Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- The Zilla Parishad Wardha, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Zilla
Parishad Wardha, Tahsil and District
Wardha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.R.Rajgure, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.D.Meghe, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 14.03.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
action on the part of the zilla parishad of recovering an amount of
Rs.2,54,000/- from the family pension payable to the petitioner.
2. The husband of the petitioner was working as a junior
clerk-cum-cashier in the Panchayat Samiti, Wardha. Due to some
1403WP5329.07-Judgment 2/5
irregularities committed by the husband of the petitioner, a
departmental enquiry was conducted against the husband of the
petitioner. According to the zilla parishad, the husband of the petitioner
had retained the cheques for the amount of Rs.78,18,000/- in the
almirah in his office, though the said cheques pertained to the income
tax, provident fund and the Life Insurance Corporation dues. Certain
other charges were also levelled against the husband of the petitioner.
In the departmental enquiry, four out of the five charges levelled
against the husband of the petitioner were held to be proved. On
15/01/2003, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing the
punishment of stoppage of one increment of the husband of the
petitioner for three years and the recovery of an amount of
Rs.3,03,701/- from him. The said amount was recovered from the
salary of the husband of the petitioner every month in small
installments. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner expired on
27/09/2006. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the
zilla parishad sought the recovery of the balance amount of
Rs.2,54,000/- from the family pension payable to the petitioner. The
action of the zilla parishad of recovering the said amount from the
family pension of the petitioner is challenged by the petitioner in the
instant petition.
1403WP5329.07-Judgment 3/5
3. Shri Rajgure, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that since no financial loss was caused to the zilla parishad
due to the irregularities committed by the husband of the petitioner, the
zilla parishad could not have directed the recovery of Rs.3,03,701/-
from the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted that this court may
take a sympathetic view in this matter as a special case, as the monthly
family pension received by the petitioner is very meager and it would
not be possible for the petitioner to survive if the amount of
Rs.2,54,000/- is deducted from the family pension, even by
installments.
4. Shri Meghe, the learned counsel for the zilla parishad, has
supported the action of the zilla parishad. It is submitted that though
the husband of the petitioner was alive and was in service till he expired
on 27/09/2006, he had not challenged the order of the disciplinary
authority dated 15/01/2003 directing the recovery of the amount of
Rs.3,03,701/- from him. It is submitted that for more than three and
half years certain amount was deducted from the salary of the
petitioner's husband in small installments. It is however admitted that
the monthly family pension payable to the petitioner is not much. It is
stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of
the case.
1403WP5329.07-Judgment 4/5
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are
inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner so that the
respondent-zilla parishad may not recover any amount from the family
pension payable to the petitioner though the petitioner would not have
a right to challenge the order dated 15/01/2003, that was not
challenged by the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner's husband
was working only as a junior clerk and the family pension payable to
the petitioner is not much. Moreover, the petitioner's husband had
expired while in service and hence the family pension payable to the
petitioner is meager. On a reading of the enquiry report, we do not find
that the petitioner's husband had caused any monetary loss to the zilla
parishad, at least that is not the finding of the enquiry officer in the
report that is placed before us, except a small amount of which a
mention is made in the report. During his lifetime, an amount of more
than Rs.50,000/- is recovered from the salary of the husband of the
petitioner in installments. One increment of the petitioner's husband
was stopped for a period of three years and the petitioner's husband
may have suffered the said punishment in the absence of any challenge
to the same. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would
be necessary to grant the relief sought by the petitioner and quash the
order of the zilla parishad seeking the recovery of Rs.2,54,000/- from
1403WP5329.07-Judgment 5/5
the family pension payable to the petitioner. While holding so, we make
it clear that this order may not be considered as a precedent, as the
relief is granted in the peculiar circumstances of the case, considering
the extreme hardship that would be caused to the petitioner.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondent-zilla parishad is restrained from making a
recovery of the balance amount that was sought to be recovered from
the husband of the petitioner, from the family pension payable to the
petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
