Bombay High Court
Dilip Pandit Yewale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
*1* 926wp8273o20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8273 OF 2020
DILIP PANDIT YEWALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri D.R.Irale Patil
AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri P.S. Patil
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE :- 04th August, 2021
Per Court :-
1. This Court had issued notice to the respondents on
16.12.2020. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were served. As no
appearance was entered, this Court issued notice for final
disposal to these respondents on 24.02.2021. The said final
hearing notices are also served. Yet, no appearance is entered on
behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. The cause of action put forth in this petition is
squarely in connection with respondent Nos.2 to 5. Their
assistance was necessary. Despite two notices of this Court
having been served on them at Aurangabad, they have chosen not
to assist this Court. We have been ignoring similar conducts of
*2* 926wp8273o20
similar respondents on several occasions. This time, we feel that
it would be appropriate to take a strict view.
3. We are, therefore, directing that respondent Nos.2 to
5 shall have to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each
from their salary accounts in this Court, on or before 31.08.2021,
failing which, we would not hesitate to initiate contempt of court
action against them, inasmuch as, we would direct the District
Collector, Aurangabad to recover the said amount as arrears of
the land revenue. We request the learned AGP representing
respondent No.1 to communicate this order to respondent Nos.2
to 5 individually.
4. The petitioner has put forth prayer clause B as under
:-
"B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass
necessary order and quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 29.08.2020 passed by
Resp. No.4 and order dated 15.10.2020 to the
extent of proposed recovery of Rs.2,68,203/-
toward incremental benefits and direct the
respondents to provide the pensionary benefits
sanctioned under impugned order dated
15.10.2020 by Resp. No.5 within the stipulated
time."
5. By the first order of this Court dated 16.12.2020,
this Court restrained the respondents from carrying out recovery
*3* 926wp8273o20
of the amount of Rs.2,68,203/- from the petitioner.
6. The petitioner is a recipient of "Adarsha Shikshak"
award (Model Teacher Award). Under the scheme applicable, the
petitioner was entitled to an advance increment. Thirty three
teachers were recipients of such awards and were, therefore,
beneficiaries of the advance increments. The petitioner has now
superannuated on 30.06.2019. The impugned order initiating the
recovery was issued on 29.08.2020 by respondent No.4 and a
further order was passed on 15.10.2020.
7. Shri Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner, has
placed before us the judgment delivered by this Court on
19.07.2016 in Writ Petition No.12037/2015 filed by Prakash
Laxmanrao Sonawane and 32 others versus the same Zilla
Parishad, Aurangabad. These 33 employees are identically placed
with the petitioner. Even in their cases, they were held eligible
for additional increments and subsequently, the Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad sought to recover the said amounts from them. By
the said judgment dated 19.07.2016, this Court concluded that
these teachers had not played any fraud on the Zilla Parishad,
they were not instrumental in inflating their pay scales by
addition of increments. We find that these petitioners had not
*4* 926wp8273o20
indulged in unjustful enrichment.
8. This Court at the Nagpur Bench had considered
similar causes of action and had delivered the judgment dated
16.12.2014 in Writ Petition Nos.6116/2014 (Suresh Raghoba
Bhowate vs. State of Maharashtra), 5430/2014 (Manisha
Aniruddha Mahatme vs. State of Maharashtra) and 194/2014
(Dilip Vinayakrao Kalamkar vs. State of Maharashtra). Similar
judgment was also delivered by this Court at Aurangabad in Writ
Petition No.8171/2019 (Balasaheb Janhardhan Jaybhaye vs. State
of Maharashtra) on 07.10.2019.
9. In all the above referred cases, the State and
National Awardee teachers were beneficiaries of additional
increments in view of their achievement and the concerned Zilla
Parishads had sought to recover the said amount. Despite these
judgments having been delivered, the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
has still proceeded against the present petitioner knowing that
this Court has taken a view in identical set of facts. This is a clear
case of a litigant having been deliberately made to rush to the
Court on account of injustice at the hands of the Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad.
10. We do not find that the petitioner had played any
*5* 926wp8273o20
role in being a beneficiary of advance increments pursuant to he
being awarded "Adarsha Shikshak Puraskar". He had not fixed
his pay scale. He received whatever amount that was paid to him
by the employer. We do not find any fraudulent act attributable to
the petitioner.
11. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause "B", reproduced above.
12. Since we have come to the conclusion that the
petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation by the
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad though the judgment dated
19.07.2016 was delivered by this Court in an identical set of facts
against the same Zilla Parishad, we are imposing costs of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) on the Zilla
Parishad, Aurangabad, which shall be paid to the petitioner on or
before 30.09.2021.
kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
