Bombay High Court
Tilakchand Tejram Rahangdale vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 19 January, 2018
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
wp6630.17.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6630/2017
PETITIONER : Tilakchand Tejram Rahangdale,
Aged 58 years, Occ : Retired,
In front of Municipal Council, Tiroda,
District : Gondia.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Rural Development
and Water Conservation Department,
Mumbai - 440 032.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia.
3. Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad,
Godia.
4. Chief Accounts and Finance Officer
(CAFO) Zilla Parishad, Gondia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R. Deshpande, Counsel for petitioner
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent no.1.
Shri A.Y. Kapgate, Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 19/01/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
wp6630.17.odt
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the
action on the part of the respondent no.4 of withholding the pension of
the petitioner on the ground that the benefit of one additional increment
was wrongfully paid to the petitioner, is illegal. The petitioner has sought
a direction against the respondents to immediately grant all the retiral
benefits to the petitioner and to start paying the regular pension to him.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Zilla
Parishad School in Gondia on 11/9/1984. The petitioner was granted an
additional increment in view of the award that was received by him on
5/9/2008 as per the policy of the Government. The petitioner received
the benefit of the additional increment till the petitioner retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30/6/2017. It appears that the
pension case of the petitioner was submitted by the Zilla Parishad to the
respondent no.4 - Chief Accounts and Finance Officer of the Zilla
Parishad for payment of pension and retiral benefits. The pension case of
the petitioner was however returned by the respondent no.4 to the school
in which the petitioner was working, with a remark that till the petitioner
refunds the amount received by the petitioner in excess towards the
benefit of an additional increment, the pension case of the petitioner
cannot be processed. The petitioner has challenged the said
communication and has filed the instant petition with the aforesaid
wp6630.17.odt
prayers.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
issue whether the District Awardee Teacher was entitled to the benefit of
one increment came up for consideration before this Court in Writ
Petition No.625/2016 and after hearing the parties this Court has, by the
order dated 17/11/2017, partly allowed the writ petition and held that
the District Awardee Teachers were entitled to additional increment and
the respondents were directed to continue the honour and execute their
order dated 4/9/2008. It is submitted that if the amount was not
wrongfully paid to the petitioner, the respondent no.4 could not have
sought the recovery of the same. It is submitted that even otherwise, an
amount mistakenly paid to an employee during the tenure of his/her
service cannot be recovered after the retirement of the employee, as per
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed
Abdul Qadir and others...Versus...State of Bihar and others, reported in
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 475 and State of Punjab and
others...Versus...Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in
(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334.
The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent no.1 states that the State has no role to play in the matter
and the objection in regard to the recovery was raised by the respondent
wp6630.17.odt
no.4.
The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 states
that the respondent nos.2 to 4 would take a decision on the pension case
of the petitioner within two months.
We are not inclined to permit the respondent nos.2 to 4 to
take any decision on the pension case of the petitioner, in the
circumstances of the case as the case of the petitioner is covered by the
judgment of this Court. It is held by this Court in Writ Petition
No.625/2016 that the District Awardee Teachers were entitled to the
benefit of an additional increment. If that is so, none of the respondents
would be entitled to recover the amount received by the petitioner
towards an additional increment from the year 2008. Even otherwise, if
the petitioner has received certain monetary benefits during the tenure of
his service, the money wrongfully paid to the petitioner cannot be
recovered after his retirement. The learned Counsel has rightly relied on
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. Though the
petitioner has retired in the month of June, 2017, the petitioner has not
received any pensionary benefit.
In the circumstances of the case, we direct the respondent
nos.2 to 4 to immediately process the pension case of the petitioner and to
release the arrears of pensionary benefits and the regular pension in
wp6630.17.odt
favour of the petitioner within three months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
