Bombay High Court
Bharti Sanjay Amale vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 6 January, 2022
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige
1 918-wp 232-2022+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 232 OF 2022
Dilip Ramdas Vani .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 239 OF 2022
Maharu Garadal Rathod .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 242 OF 2022
Rajendra Bhavdu Bhokre .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2022 02:19:27 :::
2 918-wp 232-2022+.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 252 OF 2022
Bharti Sanjay Amale .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2022
Govindsing Thansing Rajput .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2022
Raju Nimba Kumavat .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2022
Sadhana Chintaman Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2022 02:19:27 :::
3 918-wp 232-2022+.odt
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 2022
Vijaysing Daulatsingh Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2022
Subhas Dharamsing Rathod .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATED : 06th JANUARY, 2022.
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
3 of 5
4 918-wp 232-2022+.odt
judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih
(White 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 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 was done in the year 2013. The case of the
petitioners is covered by the judgment of Apex Court 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.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been
4 of 5
5 918-wp 232-2022+.odt
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 and wife of the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 242 of 2022 and husband of the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 252 of 2022 within a period of four (04)
months from today.
6. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
( S. G. DIGE ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
5 of 5
