[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bachina Nageshwara Rao vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 December, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:35652-DB
{1} wp3244-17.doc
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3244 OF 2017
Dr. Bachina Nageshwara Rao PETITIONER
Age - 69 years, Occ- Pensioner,
R/o 404, S. S. Heights,
Gokul Nagar,
Tarnaka, Secundarabad - 500 017
Telangana State
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education & Drugs Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
3. The Dean
Government Medical College and Hospital
Aurangabad
4. The Accountant General,
Maharashtra - II,
Nagpur
.......
Mr. Pallav Sinha h/f Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent - State
.......
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. J.]
RESERVE DON : 11th DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th DECEMBER, 2025
{2} wp3244-17.doc
JUDGMENT (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.):
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
2. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:
"B. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be
directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,55,368/- forcefully recovered by the
State from the petitioner without any lawful authority aongwith interest @
12% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of the payment
thereof.
C. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be
directed to pay Gratuity of Rs.3.5 lacs, which is the revised ceiling limit, to
the petitioner alongwith interest thereon @ 12% from the date on which it
became payable till the date of its actual payment.
D. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be
directed to pay the amount of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) to the
petitioner as per the MCS Rules, along with interest thereon @ 12% from
the date on which it became payable till the date of its actual payment.
E. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be
directed to grant the benefit of Earned Leave Encashment to the petitioner
as per the GR dated 15.1.2001.
F. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be
directed to pay Dearness Allowance to the petitioner as per the GR dated
20.7.2004 along with interest on the difference amount from the date on
which it became payable till the date of its actual payment.
{3} wp3244-17.doc
G. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be
directed to revise the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.21,900/- to
Rs.22,400/- and calculate the pensionable pay on the basis thereof as per
G. R. dated 27.1.2000.
J. By issuing writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, it be declared
that the petitioner is entitled to claim, receive and recovery full pension
i.e. 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay
corresponding to his pre-revised pay scale without pro-rata deduction as
per Office Memorandum dated 6.4.2016 and 13.6.2016 filed at Exh-X and
Y and further respondents be directed to revise the pensionable pay of the
petitioner by applying the above rule."
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner is MD in
Radiation Oncology and was appointed as Professor with
Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad on 7 th
December, 1981. On the request made by the then State of
Andhra Pradesh, the Petitioner was sent on deputation, for being
appointed as Director of M.N.J. Institute of Oncology and
Regional Cancer Center, Hyderabad, as per Government
Resolution dated 21st June, 2001. Petitioner's Deputation period
was extended by the State Government twice, vide Government
Resolution dated 9th March 2004 till 24th June 2005 and vide
Government Resolution dated 5 th October, 2004 till 24th June
2005. In view of the extensions granted by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, the Petitioner worked there till 4 th April 2007 and
{4} wp3244-17.doc
thereafter he claims to have relinquished the said post.
4. In the interregnum, the Petitioner, on attaining the age of
superannuation, retired from his parent department i.e.
Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, as
Professor of Radiotherapy on 31st August 2005. The Petitioner
claims to have rendered total 23 years, 8 months and 24 days'
service from 7th December 1981 to 31st August 2005. By
Government Resolution dated 30th August, 2008, the State of
Maharashtra granted post facto sanction extending the period of
deputation of the Petitioner from 25 th June, 2005 to 31st August,
2005. The Petitioner claims that while issuing the said GR, the
Respondents have wrongly recovered an amount of
Rs.4,55,368/- which was deposited by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh towards his leave salary and pension.
5. The Respondents have opposed the Writ Petition, by filing
a detailed reply. They have claimed that though extension was
granted to the Petitioner up to 24 th June 2005, he did not resume
his duty in the Government Medical College and Hospital,
Aurangabad, hence post facto sanction was required to be given
to the Petitioner from 25th June 2005 to 31st August 2005,
subject to payment of dues against the Petitioner. Calculations of
the dues of the Petitioner are also given in the affidavit in reply.
{5} wp3244-17.doc
The Respondents have submitted that all the benefits claimed by
the Petitioner are already extended to him and entire dues of the
Petitioner are paid.
6. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned AGP
for the Respondents,at length. Perused the memo of Writ Petition
and the documents annexed thereto.
7. In support of his case, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
has relied on following judgments :
I. "Rajendra Prasad Upadhyaya V/s State of U.P. through Prin. Secretary
Irrigation" 2012 SCC OnLine All 621.
II. "K. C. Bajaj and Others V/s Union of India and Others" (2014) 3 SCC
III. Writ Petition No. 5042 of 2016 dated 2nd February, 2024 (Association of
College and Univeristy Superannuated Teachers V/s Union of India and
Others)
IV. Writ Petition No. 8987 of 2014 dated 8 th May, 2015 (Dr. Shafat Hussain
Shafaquat Hussain Talib V/s The State of Maharashtra)
8. Learned AGP, on the other hand, has strenuously opposed
the petition by relying on the affidavit in reply and documents
annexed thereto, by submitting that all the retiral benefits are
{6} wp3244-17.doc
already paid to the Petitioner in accordance with the rules and
the Petition is misconceived and hence is liable to be dismissed
with costs.
9. It is evident from the documents placed on record by the
Respondents that, though the period of Petitioner's deputation
was up to 24th June 2005 and he was supposed to resume in
service of the State of Maharashtra from 25 th June 2005,
however, he did not resume Maharashtra Government service
and opted to remain on deputation at Hyderabad, till he attained
the age of superannuation. The Maharashtra Government was,
therefore, required to give post facto sanction for the period 25 th
June 2005 to 31st August, 2005, by order dated 30th August
2008.
10. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that, following dues were
recoverable from the Petitioner:
a. House Building Advance : Rs.1,09,124/-
b. Pay and Allowance : Rs. 32,557/-
c. Government Quarter Recovery : Rs.1,50,019/-
d. Recovery of excess payment : Rs. 54,165/-
___________
TOTAL : Rs. 3,45,865/-
11. Since the Petitioner was liable to pay the above dues, the
said amount is rightly recovered from the Petitioner. Hence, we
find no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the said
{7} wp3244-17.doc
amount is illegally recovered from him.
12. Admittedly, 6th Pay Commission benefits were conferred on
the Government servants with effect from 1 st January, 2006. The
Petitioner stood retired on 31 st August, 2005 and, therefore, he
is not entitled to claim benefits of 6 th Pay Commission. Therefore,
there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that, his
basic salary was wrongly considered while fixing the pension.
13. The record further reveals that, while calculating his
pension, as per GR dated 15th November, 1999, since the
Petitioner's highest pay was Rs.24,500/-, the same was taken
into consideration while granting pension to the Petitioner.
Accountant General, by communication dated 22 nd March, 2010,
informed that as per the GR dated 15 th November, 1999, the
Petitioner is entitled to get pension of RS.13,086/- per month.
An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards Death Cum Retirement
Gratuity, which is the maximum, was sanctioned and paid to the
Petitioner.
14. As per Government Resolution dated 18 th March, 2000,
25% NPA was made applicable to the Petitioner, subject to the
condition that total basic pay plus NPA should not exceed
Rs.29,500/-.
{8} wp3244-17.doc
15. It appears from the record that at the time of retirement,
the Petitioner's basic pay was Rs.20,900/-, therefore, 50%
Dearness Pay (Rs.10,450/-) payable to the Petitioner in terms of
GR dated 20th July, 2004 was sanctioned.
16. The record further reveals that, the Petitioner was granted
total 279 days' leave encashment.
17. Thus, it is clear that, the Petitioner is paid all his dues. The
retiral benefits granted to the Petitioner are verified and
sanctioned by the Accountant General, Nagpur. Thus, the
Petitioner has received all the retiral benefits payable to him, as
per the Rules and Government policy.
18. The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner are rendered in
different facts and are of no help to the Petitioner's case.
19. For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the
Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is
discharged. No order as to costs.
[ VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
drp/wp3244-17.doc
