Bombay High Court
Walmik S/O Natthuji Kokate vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 5 January, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
1
wp1193.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1193/2019
Walmik S/o Natthuji Kokate,
aged about 59 Yrs., Occu. Retired,
R/o Deorankar Layout, Ward No.10,
Wardha. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary (Education)
Rural Development Department,
Secretariat, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
through Chief Executive Officer,
Dist. Wardha.
3. Assistant Chief Auditor & Finance
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha, Dist. Wardha. ..Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.U. Bhure, Advocate h/f Ms S.S. Dashputre, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Shri J.S. Mokadam, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED :- 5.1.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Avinash G. Gharote, J.)
1. Heard Shri S.U. Bhure, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
wp1193.2019.odt
S.M. Ukey, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 and Shri J.S. Mokadam, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2
to 4.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
3. The present petition seeks to quash the communication dated
30.11.2018 issued by respondent No.3 seeking to make a recovery
from the gratuity of the petitioner on account of excess amount paid
to the petitioner. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others V/s
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334
to contend that his case is covered by the said judgment and,
therefore, no recovery is permissible.
4. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 have today filed a reply in which it
has been stated that an undertaking was given by the petitioner to the
effect that in case any excess payment is found to have been made to
the petitioner as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or on any other
count, the same would be refunded by the petitioner to the
Government either by adjustment against future payment due to him
wp1193.2019.odt
or otherwise. This undertaking is dated 2.5.2009. Another
undertaking to the same effect is dated 7.3.2019. The effect of giving
an undertaking has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others V/s. Jagdev
Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and it has been specifically held
that where an undertaking is given by an employee to the employer
that any excess payment calculated inadvertently would be refunded
by him, the dictum in the case of State of Punjab and others V/s Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) and others (supra) would not be applicable.
Considering what has been stated in the case of High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and others V/s. Jagdev Singh (supra), we do not find
any merit in the petition. It is dismissed accordingly. Rule
discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
