Bombay High Court
Ashok Mahadev Ingle And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 930-wp 8312-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8312 OF 2021
Ashok Mahadev Ingle
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondents/State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 04th AUGUST, 2021.
PER COURT:-
. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
A.G.P.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in
case of similarly situated persons, has set aside the order of recovery
and directed to refund the amount of which recovery was made on
account of wrong fixation.
3. The learned counsel refers to the judgment and order dated
18.07.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 5367 of 2016 and the judgment
and order dated 12.02.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.695 of 2016.
1 of 3
2 930-wp 8312-2021.odt
4. It is not disputed that the petitioners are similarly situated as the
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5367 of 2016 and 695 of 2016,
referred to above and are from the same Department.
5. The petitioners have retired from service and claim the refund of
the amount recovered from them on account of wrong fixation. The
petitioners rely on the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and
others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. reported in 2015 (4) SCC
334. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down the following
parameters :-
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to
retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been
made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of
recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been
required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid
accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required
to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that
recovery if made from the employees, would be iniquitous or
harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employers right to recovery.
2 of 3
3 930-wp 8312-2021.odt
6. The petitioners were working on Class-III posts on the date of
retirement. It would cause hardship to the petitioners if the said
amount is recovered. All the parameters detailed in the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer), etc. (supra) are attracted in the present matter.
7. In light of the above, the impugned order of recovery is quashed
and set aside. In case the respondents have recovered the amount from
the petitioners, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners
expeditiously and preferably within four months.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
( R. N. LADDHA ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
3 of 3
