Bombay High Court
Tukaram Ramdas Gavhale vs The Zilla Parishad Jalgaon Thr ... on 6 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
(1) 940-942-964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
940 WRIT PETITION NO.8498 OF 2021
SUDHAKAR NATHU PATIL ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE ZILLA PARISHAD JALGAON THR CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENTS
AND
942 WRIT PETITION NO.8500 OF 2021
TUKARAM RAMDAS GAVHALE ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE ZILLA PARISHAD JALGAON THR CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENTS
AND
964 WRIT PETITION NO.8522 OF 2021
PRAMOD TRAMBAK NEVE ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE ZILLA PARISHAD JALGAON THR ITS EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Maheshkumar S. sonawane, Advocate for
Respondents.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 06th AUGUST, 2021.
PER COURT:-
1. The petitions are filed to the extent of
recovery claimed.
2. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for petitioners
submits that petitioners have retired from service.
(2) 940-942-964
From the retiral benefits, recovery is claimed by
respondent no.2. If recovery is claimed, hardship
would be caused to petitioners. The petitioners
are not responsible for wrong pay fixation. The
learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334.
3. Mr. Sonawane, learned counsel submits that
petitioners had given an undertaking that they will
refund the excess amount paid on account of wrong
pay fixation.
4. It is not disputed that petitioners
retired from service. The petitioners at the time
of retirement were working as Class III employees.
The undertaking according to respondents is given
in the year 2009 and the benefit was granted to
petitioners in the year 2013. In view of that, the
undertaking would be of no avail.
5. The recovery claimed is beyond five years
of the benefit given.
6. The Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) has laid down
following parameters for not allowing recovery on
account of wrong pay fixation:-
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to
Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group
'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired
employees, or employees who are due to
(3) 940-942-964
retire within one year, of the order of
recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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 employee, would be
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such
an extent, as would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employer's
right to recover.
7. All the parameters laid down by the Apex
Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih
(supra) are attracted in the present case.
8. In light of the above, impugned orders to
the extent of recovery are quashed and set aside.
9. Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
10. In case, recovery is made by respondents,
the same shall be refunded to petitioners within a
period of four (04) months.
(R. N. LADDHA) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/August-2021
