Sukdeo Eknath Deore vs The Chief Executive Officer And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4914 Bom

                                       1                                 wp 4860.2021

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               932 WRIT PETITION NO.4860 OF 2021

                   SUKDEO EKNATH DEORE
                          VERSUS
          THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS
                            ...
      Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Bolkar Yogesh B.
                Advocate for Respondents:
               Mr. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane
                            ...

                               CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                      SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

                               DATE:       18th MARCH, 2021

 PER COURT:

 1.       Mr.         Bolkar,          learned         Counsel            for        the

petitioner submits that the recovery is claimed

under the impugned orders dated 10.06.2016 and

10.10.2017. The learned Counsel relies on the

judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of

Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Misih (White Washer)

and others reported in 2015 (4) Supreme Court

Cases 334.

2. The learned Counsel submits that the wife of

the petitioner is dead and represented by legal

heir. The recovery also cannot be claimed for a

2 wp 4860.2021

period prior to five years. No misrepresentation

was made by the decease wife of the petitioner at

any material point of time.

3. Mr. M. S. Sonawane, learned Counsel for the

respondents submits that the decease wife of the

petitioner was supposed to complete MS-CIT within

a stipulated period. The said period was also

finally extended up to 31.12.2007. However, the

decease wife of the petitioner did not complete

the same. In view of that, increments granted from

01.01.2008 have been rightly recalled. The

deceased wife of the petitioner is liable for the

same.

4. The case of the deceased wife of the

petitioner does not come within the ambit and

purview of wrong pay fixation. The increments were

granted to the deceased wife of the petitioner on

the ground that the deceased wife of the

petitioner shall complete MS-CIT within the

stipulated period. The deceased wife of the

petitioner failed to complete the same. According

3 wp 4860.2021

to the petitioner she completed MS-CIT but after

stipulated period. In view of that, the

respondents were within their powers to withdraw

the benefit given to the petitioner.

5. However, it would appear that the employee is

dead and is now represented by the legal

representative. It is only on the ground that

deceased employee is dead and it would be

inequitable to recover the amount from the legal

heir, we have entertained the petition.

6. Considering the facts that hardship would be

caused, if the recovery is made from the legal

representative of the deceased employee. The legal

representative is a husband doing agricultural

work. Only on the ground of equity and facts and

circumstances of the case, we have entertained the

petition.

7. In the result, the impugned orders to the

extent of recovery only is quashed and set aside.

 The       amount         of    recovery         as    claimed          under        the





                                  4                            wp 4860.2021

impugned orders shall not be withheld. However,

pay fixation will be done considering the order

that the deceased employee had not completed

MS-CIT within the stipulated period.

8. In case, the recovery is already made by the

respondent, the same shall be repaid/refunded to

the petitioner preferably within a period of three

(03) months.

9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No

costs.

[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

marathe