Bombay High Court
Pramila Sukalal Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 December, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige
(1) 18-46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13805 OF 2021
PRAMILA SUKALAL JADHAV ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2
to 5.
...
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.13834 OF 2021
RAGHUNATH UDA CHAVAN ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2
to 5.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATED : 13th DECEMBER, 2021.
PER COURT:-
1. The Petitioners are challenging the
recovery made by the Respondents from the retiral
benefits.
2. Mr. Sontakke, learned counsel for the
Petitioners relies on the judgment of Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White
(2) 18-46
washer), reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. Learned
counsel submits that, after retirement, recovery is
made by the Respondents from the retiral benefits
on the ground that pay fixation was wrongly done.
It is not disputed that, the Petitioners are
retired as Class-III employees.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent - Zilla
Parishad submits that, the Petitioners cannot take
advantage of erroneous pay fixation. If the
directions are given to refund the amount to the
Petitioners, then the Petitioners would be unjustly
enriched. The Respondents have authority to recover
the amount paid by mistake.
4. Pay fixation of the Petitioners in the
respective matters was done in the year 1996, 2010
& 2012 respectively. The case of the Petitioners is
covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the case
of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White washer)
(supra), wherein the Apex Court 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.
(3) 18-46
(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 employer's right to
recover.
5. All the parameters laid down in the
judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra)
are fulfilled. In light of the above, orders to
the extent of recovery are quashed and set aside.
The Respondents shall return the amount recovered
from the Petitioners on account of wrong pay
fixation within a period of four months from today.
6. Writ Petitions are disposed of
accordingly. No costs.
(S. G. DIGE) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/December-2021
