Bombay High Court
Rangnath Bapurao Pitale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
WP No.9272/21
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
941 WRIT PETITION NO.9272 OF 2021
RANGNATH BAPURAO PITALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ambetkar Arvind G.
Addl. GP for Respondents : Mrs. M.A. Deshpande
...
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 24/08/2021.
PER COURT :
1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that,
the petitioners were Class-III employees at the time of retirement
and the recovery has been claimed by the respondents.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.G.P.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
this Court in the 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.
4. The learned Counsel refers to the judgment and order
dated 18.07.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 5367 of 2016 and
WP No.9272/21
the judgment and order dated 12.02.2018 passed in Writ Petition
No. 695 of 2016.
5. 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.
6. 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
WP No.9272/21
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.
7. 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.
8. In light of the above, the impugned order of recovery
is quashed and set aside.
9. The petitioners shall give details of the amount
recovered. The respondents shall verify the same from the record
and if the amount is recovered from the retiral benefits on account
of excess payment made, the same shall be refunded within a
period of four (04) months from the date the petitioners
submitting the details and the chart.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
[ R.N. LADDHA, J. ] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
ssc/
