Omprakash S/O Kisan Tade vs Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4123 Bom

              Judgment                             1      916-wp7400-19.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                  WRIT PETITION NO.7400 OF 2019


      Omprakash Kisan Tade,
      Aged about 62 years, Occu. - Retired,
      R/o Bordi,Tah. Akot,Dist.Akola.            .... PETITIONER

                             // VERSUS //

1)    Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
      through its Member Secretary,
      4th Floor Express Towers, Nariman Point,
      Mumbai.

2)    Superintending Engineer,
      Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
      Mandal, Near Nehru Park, Akola

3)    Deputy Chief Accounts Officer
      (I), Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
      CIDCO Bhawan,Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

4)   State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
     Department of Water Supply and Sanitation,
     7th Floor, Gokuldas Tejpal Hospital
     Building, Near Croffered Market, Lokmanya
     Tilak Mark, Mumbai.                          .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
     Shri P.D.Meghe, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Shri D.M.Kakani, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
     Shri. D.P. Thakare,Addl.G.P. for respondent No.4.
______________________________________________________________
                  CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                            SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

DATED : 19.04.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 2 916-wp7400-19.odt

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, does not

press prayer Clause-(i), as the order dated 10.07.2019, revising the

pay-scale payable to the petitioner, was beneficial for the petitioner,

which is also reflected in the revised pay fixation order dated

06.08.2019 which raises the basic pension payable to the petitioner

from Rs.5,080/- to Rs.5,335/-. Thus, the challenge to the order dated

06.08.2019 to the extent, it revises the pension payable to the

petitioner, on the higher side, also goes. Now what remains is the

recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner. Law on this point is

well settled. As held in the case of State of Punjab and ors Vs. Rafiq

Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court

Cases 334, recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV

service (or Group C and Group D Service), is not permissible under

any circumstances, especially when the recovery is sought to be made

after retirement of such employees. The case of the petitioner is

squarely covered by the law so laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the said case of State of Punjab and ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) and others(supra), and therefore, we are of the view that the

impugned order dated 06.08.2019 to the extent it orders recovery of

excess payment made to the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set

aside, it being illegal and against the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court.

Judgment 3 916-wp7400-19.odt

3. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed.

Respondents are directed to not recover any excess amount already

paid to the petitioner and they are further directed to refund the

amount so recovered from the petitioner on account of excess payment

in four equal monthly installments starting from 1st June, 2022.

4. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Kavita.

Signed By:KAVITA PRAVIN TAYADE P. A.

Signing Date:19.04.2022 17:52