Madhukar Vishwanath Yerane vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1116 Bom

WP 6592-2019                                   1                     Judgment

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 6592 OF 2019

Madhukar Vishwanath Yerane,
Aged about 47 years, Occ. Asstt. Teacher,
R/o C/o Zilla Parishad School, Chapati (Nimgaon),
Panchayat Samiti - Arjuni (More),
District - Gondia.
                                                                 PETITIONER
                                  .....VERSUS.....
1.     The State of Maharashtra,
       through its Secretary,
       Rural Development and Water Conservation Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.     The Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
       through its Chief Executive Officer,
       Gondia, Tal. & Dist. Gondia.

3.     The Chief Audit and Finance Officer,
       Zilla Parishad, Gondia
                                                               RESPONDENT S

                 Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1/
                                       State.
            Ms. Meghna Munshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.


CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 2/2/2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner who is serving as an Assistant Teacher with the

Zilla Parishad, Gondia is aggrieved by the communication dated WP 6592-2019 2 Judgment

1/6/2019 issued by the Accounts Officer by which it has been held that

the petitioner is not entitled for the advance increments that came to be

granted from 5/9/2008. Further direction has been issued to recover the

payments made according to the order dated 5/9/2008.

3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is not in

dispute that in somewhat similar circumstances, another employee of the

same Zilla Parishad who was also working as an Assistant Teacher had

approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 6630/2017 (Tilakchand

Tejram Rahangdale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided on

19/1/2018) raising an objection to the recovery contemplated against the

amount of additional increment received by him. By the said judgment,

this Court after referring to the decision in the case of State of Punjab and

others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others [(2015) 4 SCC 334]

has held that such recovery was not permissible. The learned Counsel for

the respondents do not dispute the applicability of the ratio of the said

decision to the present case. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 625/2016

(Sharad Pawar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others

decided on 17/11/2017), this Court has held that retrospective recovery

of the amounts/ benefits granted earlier shall not be undertaken.

4. In view of aforesaid, for the reasons contained in Tilakchand WP 6592-2019 3 Judgment

Tejram Rahangdale (supra), the impugned communication dated

1/6/2019 is quashed and set aside. It is directed that in terms of the

Circular dated 12/12/2000, the petitioner would be entitled to receive

the additional benefits as earlier.

5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

SUMIT

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:02.02.2023 15:55