Bombay High Court
Sushma Dubey Wd/O Chandrakant ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 3 May, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0305WP5453.13-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5453 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Sushma Dubey Wd/o Chandrakant Dubey,
Age : 70 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o Civil Lines,
Gondia.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Department
of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Annexe,
Mumbai.
2. Zilla Parishad, Gondia, Through Chief
Executive Officer, Gondia,
3. Senior Accounts Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Gondia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.N.Vastani, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms N.P.Mehta, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Mr.A.Y.Kapgate, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 03.05.2017
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 action
on the part of the zilla parishad of recovering the salary paid to the
deceased husband of the petitioner for the period during which he had
worked as a teacher with the respondent-zilla parishad.
0305WP5453.13-Judgment 2/4
2. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as a teacher
in the zilla parishad school on 12/12/1956 and he was sought to be
relieved from service on attaining the age of superannuation. According
to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner believed that the age of
retirement of the husband of the petitioner would be 60 years and,
therefore, he had filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that his age
of retirement is 60 years. In the said petition an interim order was
passed in favour of the husband of the petitioner as a result of which,
the husband of the petitioner continued to work as a teacher in the zilla
parishad school till 30/04/1997. The zilla parishad paid the salary to
the husband of the petitioner for the period during which he had
worked. Ultimately, the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband
was dismissed. After the dismissal of the said petition, the zilla
parishad has sought to recover the amount paid to the petitioner's
husband towards salary for the period during which he worked, after he
attained the age of 58 years. The said action on the part of the zilla
parishad is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
3. Shri Vastani, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that admittedly, the petitioner's husband had worked as a
teacher with the zilla parishad in terms of the interim orders passed by
this court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband. It is
0305WP5453.13-Judgment 3/4
submitted that the petitioner's husband had actually rendered services
till 30/04/1997 and he was paid for having worked till the said date. It
is submitted that it would be wrongful on the part of the respondent-
zilla parishad in recovering the amount paid to the husband of the
petitioner from the petitioner, who is his widow.
4. Shri Kapgate, the learned counsel for the zilla parishad,
has supported the action of the zilla parishad. It is submitted that since
the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband was dismissed and it
was held that the retirement age of the husband of the petitioner would
be 58 years, the respondent-zilla parishad had sought to recover the
amount paid to the petitioner's husband for working after the age of 58
years.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that it would not be proper on the part of the zilla parishad to recover
the amount that was paid to the petitioner's husband towards salary for
the period during which he had actually worked. The petitioner's
husband had filed the writ petition under a bona fide impression that his
age of retirement would be 60 years and in the said writ petition an
interim order was passed in favour of the husband of the petitioner,
permitting him to continue as an assistant teacher. On the basis of the
0305WP5453.13-Judgment 4/4
interim order passed by this court, the petitioner's husband continued to
work as an assistant teacher till 30/04/1997. The petitioner's husband
was paid for having actually worked with the zilla parishad. In the
aforesaid set of facts, it would be wrongful on the part of the zilla
parishad to recover the amount from the widow of the employee to
whom the salary was paid for the actual work that was put in by the
employee. The relief sought by the petitioner needs to be granted in the
circumstances of the case.
5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
