Dattaram Kashinath Palwankar vs The Municipal Corporation Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2987 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:9272-DB

                                                                   32.7259.22-wp.docx


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 7259 OF 2022

            Dattaram Kashinath Palwankar                            ..... Petitioner

                     Vs.

            Municipal Corporation of
            Greater Mumbai & Ors.                                   ..... Respondents


            Mr. Mahendra Agavekar with Shraddha Chavan for the Petitioner
            Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for the State
            Mr. S. N. Pillai with Mr. R. Y. Sirsikar for Respondent No.1


                                                  CORAM:    S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                            SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : MARCH 27, 2023

P.C.

1. The Petitioner is challenging the recovery made by the

Respondents.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

amount on account of implementation of the 6 th Pay Commission was

paid to the Petitioner from 2012 to 2014 and the recovery is claimed

under letter dated 22nd September 2019. The said recovery is for a

period of more than five years. As such the same is covered as per

the judgment of the apex court in the case of State of Punjab and

Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC

334.

            Basavraj                                                                        1/3





                                              32.7259.22-wp.docx

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it would be

iniquitous to recover the said amount. Hardship would be caused to

the Petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the

Petitioner stood retired on 28th February 2009. In the year 2010 a

decision was taken to give the benefit of 6 th Pay Commission and

thereafter excess payment was made on account of erroneous

implementation of the same. All this happened after the retirement

of the Petitioner. As such the letter was given in September 2019.

The Petitioner did not abide by that, as such, recovery is claimed.

5. We have considered the submissions. It appears that five

installments are recovered from the Petitioner.

6. In normal course, we would have set aside the recovery of

payments made to an employee during his service and sought to be

done after his retirement.

7. In the present case, the Petitioner stood retired on 28 th

February 2009 and was paid all the retiral benefits. The pension

had commenced. It appears that in the year 2010 a decision was

taken by the Respondents to revise the pay scale in view of

Basavraj 2/3

32.7259.22-wp.docx

implementation of the 6th Pay Commission and though the Petitioner

had retired, the arrears were paid to the Petitioner after retirement

during 2012 to 2014.

8. It is worth considering that the Petitioner has retired as a

Class-II officer and was working as a Senior Accounts Manager. It is

not disputed that the said post is a Class-II post. The parameters laid

down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) may not enure to the benefit

of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a Class-II employee so also the

benefits were given to the Petitioner after his retirement and

recovery thereof is claimed.

9. In light of the above, we are not inclined to grant relief to the

Petitioner.

10. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)                      (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Basavraj                                                                 3/3