Bombay High Court
Vijay Namdeo Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 31 January, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:2384-DB
*1* 927wp1217o24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 WRIT PETITION NO. 1217 OF 2024
VIJAY NAMDEO CHAUDHARI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bolkar Yogesh B.
AGP for Respondent 1/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondents 2 to 4/ZP: Mr. S.R. Dheple
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE :- 31st January, 2024
Per Court :-
1. The Petitioner has superannuated from employment.
He has been subjected to recovery of amounts, purportedly for
the reason that the amounts that were paid to him towards his
revised pay-scales, in view of acquiring certificate of MS-CIT or
on account of the pay fixation, almost a decade ago, were
wrongly paid to him.
2. It is undisputed that the Petitioner was not personally
involved in the revision of his pay scale. He was also not
involved in manipulating such revision. There is no allegation of
fraud or deceit against him. No undertaking was obtained from
*2* 927wp1217o24
the Petitioner on the date when the pay scales were revised and
the payment of revised pay scale commenced.
3. We have come across several cases wherein, at the
stroke of retirement, a condition was imposed that such
employees should execute an undertaking and it is in these
circumstances that an undertaking has been extracted from
several employees. The learned Advocate representing the Zilla
Parishad as well as the learned AGP submit that, once an
undertaking is executed, such cases would be covered by the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High
Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, 2016
AIR (SCW) 3523. Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered
by this Court on 01.09.2021, in Writ Petition No. 13262 of 2018
filed by Ananda Vikram Baviskar Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others.
4. The learned Advocate for the Respondent/ Zilla
Parishad has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground of
delay and laches. He submits that the Petitioner has approached
this Court after six years. The Petitioner should not take
advantage of his own wrong by seeking interest. If this Court is
inclined to entertain this petition, interest may be denied.
*3* 927wp1217o24
5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits, on
instructions, that the Petitioner would claim interest only from
the date of the filing of this petition, which is 24.01.2024. We
accept this fair statement.
6. We have referred to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana
and others vs. Jagdev Singh (supra). The record reveals that no
undertaking was taken from the Petitioner when the pay scales
were revised. An undertaking has to be taken from the candidate
when the revised pay scale is made applicable to him and the
payment of such pay scale commences. At the stroke of
superannuation, asking the employees to tender an undertaking,
practically amounts to an afterthought on the part of the
Employer and a mode of compelling the candidate to execute an
undertaking since they are apprehensive that their retiral benefits
would not be released until such undertaking is executed. Such
an undertaking will not have the same sanctity as that of an
undertaking executed when the payment of revised pay scale had
commenced. We, therefore, respectfully conclude that the view
taken in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev
Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the case of such
*4* 927wp1217o24
employees, more so since the recovery is initiated after their
superannuation. Further, in the instant case, the Petitioner has not
executed any undertaking.
7. Taking into account that the Petitioner was not
involved in any mischief, fraud or deceit in orchestrating his
wrongful pay revision, the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme court in Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others,
2009 (3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and other vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334 = AIR 2015 SC 696,
would apply to the case.
8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 16.06.2017 is quashed and set aside.
The Respondent/ Employer shall return the amount of
Rs.2,16,847/- to the Petitioner within a period of 90 days. If the
amount is not paid within this period, interest at the rate of 6%
per annum would be leviable from the date it was recovered from
the Petitioner until it is paid to him.
kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
