Bombay High Court
Ramdas Baliram Bagde vs Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi ... on 21 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2103WP5360.13-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5360 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Ramdas Baliram Bagde, Aged about 60
years, Occ: Retired (Senior Clerk), R/o
Gajanan Nagar, Galli No.8, Dabaki Road,
Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- Dr.Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth,
Krushi Nagar, Akola-441 104.
Through its Registrar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.R.Fule, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 21.03.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the respondent-university dated 14/09/2012 seeking to recover a sum
of Rs.14,858/- towards the amount that was mistakenly paid to the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner was working in the respondent-university as
section assistant when he was promoted to the post of senior clerk on
2103WP5360.13-Judgment 2/3
29/12/2009. The petitioner was again promoted on ad hoc basis on the
post of senior clerk on 04/12/2010 and as per the appointment order,
the petitioner was entitled to hold the promotional post for a period of
eleven months or till his retirement, if the retirement comes earlier.
The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on
30/11/2011. The respondent granted the benefits of leave encashment
to the petitioner by considering that he was holding the post of senior
clerk on 30/11/2011. The said benefits were however sought to be
withdrawn by the impugned communication dated 14/09/2012.
3. In the circumstances of the case, the respondents were not
justified in seeking the recovery of Rs.14,858/- from the petitioner. The
petitioner admittedly worked on the post of senior clerk till he attained
the age of superannuation on 30/11/2011. Though the order of
promotion dated 14/12/2010 recited that the petitioner was promoted
on an ad hoc basis for a period of eleven months or till he retired if the
retirement was earlier, the petitioner continued to hold the post of
senior clerk on ad hoc basis till 30/11/2011. In that view of the matter,
the petitioner was rightly granted the benefits of leave encashment by
considering his service as an ad hoc senior clerk till 30/11/2011. The
petty amount of Rs.14,858/- should not have been sought to be
recovered from the petitioner by the respondent-university. The
2103WP5360.13-Judgment 3/3
respondent-university committed an error in seeking the aforesaid
amount.
4. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
