Bombay High Court
Shri. Daulatrao Dattatreya Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
21 wp14735-18.docx
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TRUSHA
TRUSHA TUSHAR
TUSHAR MOHITE
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MOHITE Date:
2023.03.23
11:50:11
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 14735 OF 2018
Shri Daulatrao Dattatreya Pawar ..... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr.Chandrakant T. Chandratre for the Petitioner
Mr.M.M.Pabale, A.G.P. for the Respondent no.1 / State
CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : MARCH 21, 2023
P.C.
1. Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties,
taken up for final disposal.
2. Recovery is claimed by the Petitioner on account of excess
payment made due to wrong pay fixation.
3. The Petitioner filed Original Application before the Tribunal.
The same is rejected.
4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner was working as a PSI from 15.09.1993 to 19.11.2008.
Thereafter, as API from 20.11.2008 to 31.12.2012 and as PI from
Mohite 1/3
21 wp14735-18.docx
01.01.2013 to 01.07.2016. The learned counsel submits that the
post of PSI is a Group C post and relies upon the G.R. dated
26.02.2004. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and others1. The learned counsel further submits
that the Petitioner has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2017. Recovery is claimed from the
Petitioner of a period from 1993 onwards.
5. According to the learned counsel, the undertaking given by the
Petitioner is in the routine manner in the year 2009 much after the
pay fixation was carried out.
6. The learned A.G.P. submits that at least after 2004-05 post of
PSI was categorised as Group B post and relies on the G.R. dated
26.05.2016. According to the learned A.G.P. considering the pay
scale the post of PSI also is a Grade B post. The Tribunal has rightly
dismissed the original Application.
7. We have considered the submissions.
8. Recovery is sought to be claimed from 1993 onwards. The
Petitioner has retired from service on 31.05.2017. After
retirement, recovery is claimed from the Petitioner. The
1 (2015) 4 SCC 334
Mohite 2/3
21 wp14735-18.docx
undertaking relied by the Petitioner would not enure to the benefit
of the Respondents. The wrong pay fixation is made 1993 onwards
and the undertaking is given in the routine manner in the year
2009. The said undertaking cannot be said to have been obtained
prior to pay fixation.
9. All the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
others (Supra) are applicable in the present case. Recovery claimed
is for a period of more than 20 years. The Petitioner for the major
part was working as a Group C employee. It would be iniquitous to
claim recovery from the Petitioner. Hardship would be caused to the
Petitioner if recovery is claimed from the retiral benefits.
10. In light of the above, impugned judgment and order to the
extent of recovery is quashed and set aside.
11. It is made clear that we have not interfered with the pay
fixation. The amount withheld on account of recovery claimed due to
wrong pay fixation be released to the Petitioner within two months.
12. Rule accordingly made absolute.
13. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Mohite 3/3
