Bombay High Court
Dr. Dilipkumar S/O Nirmalkumar ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 28 November, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp2224.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2224 OF 2017.
Dr. Dilipkumar s/o Nirmalkumar
Johrapurkar, Aged about 67 years,
Occ - Retired, resident of House
No. 587, Ladpura, Itwari, Nagpur
Tah. And District Nagpur. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Higher and Technical
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
Zero Miles, Nagpur.
3. Senior Accounts Officer,
Office of the Accountant General
(A&E)-II, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 01.
4. Sindhu Mahavidyalaya,
through its Principal, Panchpaoli Road,
Panchpaoli, Nagpur, Tah. And District
Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:07:30 :::
Judgment wp2224.17
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. M.R. Johrapurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. M.A. Barabde, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None for Respondent No.4.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard learned counsel for the parties. With their consent and
considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter, Writ Petition is
taken up for final disposal, by issuing Rule, making the same returnable
forthwith.
2. Petitioner stagnating from 01.01.2001, received stagnation
benefits and then retired on 31.03.2010. Because of communication dated
18.03.2010, issued by the State Government, Joint Director of Education
(Respondent no.2) has issued a communication dated 22.09.2010 to
Principals of all non-government aided colleges and pointed out need for
recovery of stagnation benefits. The said amount has been recovered on
Judgment wp2224.17
06.05.2010, while releasing terminal / retiremental benefits.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
in breach of principles of natural justice and for no apparent reason, the
recovery has been ordered. He also points out that in various judgments
delivered by this Court, communication dated 18.03.2010 and recoveries
have been quashed and set aside. Division Bench at Aurangabad advised the
Government to refund recovered amount to others also instead of forcing
them to file petitions.
4. Learned A.G.P. submits that petitioner has given an undertaking
that if and when fixation is found wrong, excess amount will be allowed to
be recovered.
5. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that in the impugned
order there is no reference to any such wrong fixation. On the contrary the
said order no where demonstrates that eligibility or entitlement of petitioner
was examined and he was found not eligible for stagnation benefits.
6. Communication dated 18.03.2010, may at the most force recovery
of excess paid, where there is wrongful payment. Here respondents have not
Judgment wp2224.17
invited attention of the Court to any order which holds that the stagnation
benefit has been paid to petitioner wrongfully. Undertaking obtained from
petitioner is part of standard format and it has no relevance in present
background.
7. Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9054/2010 and
2868/2011, decided on 22.08.2010 at Aurangabad has quashed and set
aside such recovery and directed respondents to return the deducted amount
within a period of three months along with interest at 12% p.a. Other Bench
at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 1054/2010 and other connected matters
on 01.10.2013, has while extending the similar relief, also directed
respondents to refund the amount to others in oder to avoid filing of several
petitions in the High Court. Similar view is taken at Nagpur while deciding
Writ Petition No. 3963/2014 on 23.09.2014. We do not wish to multiply the
instances.
9. In this situation, we find the recovery unsustainable. Accordingly
the same is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the
amount recovered from petitioner and to refund it to him within a period of
three months from today. The said amount shall carry interest @ 12% from
Judgment wp2224.17
the date of its recovery till its realization.
10. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed. Rule is made
absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
