Bombay High Court
Ramesh Manoharrao Fatale vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 19 June, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AUG:15709-DB
919-WP-6841-2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
919 WRIT PETITION NO. 6841 OF 2023
Ramesh s/o Manoharrao Fatale
Age 58 Years, Occupation Pensioner
R/o. Wadigodree, Taluka Ambad,
District Jalna. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Jalna, District Jalna.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad Jalna, District Jalna.
4. The Chief Account and Finance Officer
Zilla Parishad Jalna, District Jalna.
5. The Block Education Officer,
Pnachayat Samitee, Ambad,
District Jalna. ... Respondents
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Estling S. Murge
AGP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. V. P. Narwade and Adv. M.
V. Narwade
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATED : 19 JUNE, 2025
919-WP-6841-2023
-2-
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses B, C and D as
under :
"(B) This Hon'ble Court, by issuing writ of certiorari or
any appropriate writ or order or direction in like nature
impugned Reformative pay fixation order passed in the
Month of July 2022 by the Res. No. 5 against petitioner
may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature the
respondent No.2 to 5 may be directed to Refund
Recovered amount of Rs.1,92,226/- with interest to the
petitioner and pay all the consequential retirement benefit
to the petitioner by adding salary/pay scale which was
fixed for the post of Kendra Pramukh and for that purpose
this Hon'ble Court may issue appropriate order or
direction to the Res. No.2 to 5.
(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ
petition, respondent No.2 to 5 may be directed to refund
the amount of Rs.1,92,226/- with interest to petitioner
which was recovered from the Retirement benefit of the
petitioner by the Respondent No.2 to 5"
3. The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad has
vehemently opposed this Petition contending that, after the Petitioner
was granted the promotion as a Central Head (Kendra Pramukh) on
919-WP-6841-2023
17.06.2015, the pay fixation was done erroneously under Rule 11(1)
(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 on
18.06.2015 and as per Rule 13 of the revised Rules of 2009. The
correct pay fixation should have been done under Rule 11(2)(a). This
mistake was noticed in July 2022 prior to the superannuation of the
Petitioner on 31.08.2022. He further submits that an undertaking was
taken from the Petitioner at the time of his retirement.
4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the
undertaking was extracted on the verge of his retirement. He was
under pressure and due to fear of losing retirement benefits, he
signed the undertaking as demanded by the employer. He relies on
the order of this Court dated 08.07.2024, passed in Writ Petition No.
6832 of 2024 (Sambhaji Baliram Koli v. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary and others), wherein this Court had recorded
that an undertaking extracted from an employee on the stroke of
retirement is insignificant, since such employee has no say. He cannot
resist the employer and for the fear of losing the retirement benefits,
such undertakings are signed under compulsion.
5. It is, therefore, apparent that as per the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar and
919-WP-6841-2023
others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) etc., (2015) 4 SCC 334 - AIR 2015 SC 696,
the Act of recovery of a purported excess payment needs to be
interfered with. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that, if the
pay fixation has been done erroneously under a wrong provision and
this error was noticed one month prior to the retirement of the
Petitioner, such correction will have to be permitted for the fear of
perpetuating the error. By giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, such a mistake can be corrected.
6. In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed. The
act of causing recovery of an amount of Rs.1,92,226/- is set aside.
The Zilla Parishad shall refund the said amount to the Petitioner
along with 6% simple interest per annum, from the date of recovery
till 30.08.2025. The payment shall be made with the interest
component, on or before 30.08.2025.
7. Insofar as correcting the mistake of carrying out the pay
fixation under wrong provision, which was noticed prior to the
retirement of the Petitioner, we permit the Zilla Parishad to issue a
notice of hearing to the Petitioner granting 15 days time to respond.
The Petitioner shall tender a written explanation. If the mistake is
919-WP-6841-2023
apparent, the Zilla Parishad is expected to correct the same by
following the due procedure. If the mistake is required to be
corrected, the pay fixation shall be carried out and the pension shall
be calculated on the basis of such correction.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
vre
