Bombay High Court
Smt. Ranjana Wd/O Shivdayal ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1
wp7069.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.7069 OF 2019
Smt. Ranjana wd/o Shivdayal
Parshuramkar, aged about 45 years,
Occ. : Nil, R/o Khadipar,
Tah. Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, General
Administrative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2) Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia.
3) The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Gondia, Tahsil and
District Gondia.
4) Deputy Chief Accounts and Finance
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Tahsil and District Gondia. ... Respondents
--------
Shri I.N. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
Shri A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.
--------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 3, 2021
wp7069.2019.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.) :
Heard Shri Choudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mehta,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, and
Shri Kapgate, learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4.
2) Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
3) The husband of the petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in Primary School run by respondent No.2, died in harness on
8/7/2016. After his death, pension order came to be issued to the widow
of deceased Assistant Teacher on 12/7/2017. The gratuity release order
was also issued to her. However, by the impugned order passed on
14/7/2017 payment of excess amount of Rs.4,81,101/- has been directed to
be recovered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. It is the
contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that law in this regard is
well settled, according to which a Class-III employee like the deceased
husband of the petitioner who died in harness, falls under the category of
the employees from whom recovery of the excess payment of salary is
impermissible.
4) The law on the subject is well settled since the case of State of
Punjab and others V/s. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 334.
wp7069.2019.odt
5) The husband of petitioner was a Class-III employee, who had died
while he was in service. The annual increment of the salary had been
granted to the husband of the petitioner without his asking for the same and
without his giving any undertaking for returning any amount, if
subsequently found to have been paid in excess. Therefore, no recovery
from the salary that was payable to the husband of the petitioner could have
been ordered by the respondents. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the
petition and it is allowed.
6) The impugned order dated 14/7/2017 issued by the respondent no.4
is hereby quashed and set aside.
The recovery of ₹4,81,101/- (₹ four lakhs eighty-one thousand one4,81,101/- (₹4,81,101/- (₹ four lakhs eighty-one thousand one four lakhs eighty-one thousand one
hundred one) made from the gratuity payable to the petitioner be refunded
to the petitioner in 12 equal monthly instalments starting from
September 2021 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be
calculated for the period between the date of the recovery and date of order
in this case. Rule accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
