Bombay High Court
Ravindra Daulat Savkare vs The Zilla Parishad Jalgaon Thr ... on 18 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 911 wp.7867.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
911 WRIT PETITION NO.7867 OF 2021
RAVINDRA DAULAT SAVKARE
VERSUS
THE ZILLA PARISHAD, JALGAON,
THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vijay B. Patil.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 18th August, 2021.
P.C.:
1. The petition is filed to the extent of recovery claimed.
2. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submits that
petitioner has retired from service. From the retiral benefits,
recovery is claimed by respondent no.2. If recovery is claimed,
hardship would be caused to petitioner. The petitioner is 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 petitioner
had given an undertaking that he will refund the excess amount paid
2 911 wp.7867.21.odt
on account of wrong pay fixation.
4. It is not disputed that petitioner retired from service. The
petitioner at the time of retirement was working as Class III
employee. The undertaking according to respondents is given in the
year 2009 and the benefit was granted to petitioner 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 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 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.
3 911 wp.7867.21.odt
(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 order to the extent of
recovery is quashed and set aside.
9. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
10. In case, recovery is made by respondents, the same
shall be refunded to petitioner within a period of four (04) months.
[ R. N. LADDHA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
nga
