Bombay High Court
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis And ... vs Mohan Namdev Patole And Another on 19 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:49725-DB
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3120 OF 2020
Dattu S/o. Ashruba Sangle,
Age : 56 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Flat No. 14, Sunny Center,
New Mondha, Pisadevi Road,
Aurangabad. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10816 OF 2019
Sandeep S/o. Shivram Chavan,
Age : 42 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Gupta Road Chaal, Near Sai Baba Mandir,
Jai Hind Nagar, Khar (East). ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 1 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1486 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10816 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Sandeep S/o. Shivram Chavan,
Age : 42 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Gupta Road Chaal, Near Sai Baba Mandir,
Jai Hind Nagar, Khar (East).
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10817 OF 2019
Sow. Madhavi Indrasen Rele,
Age : 59 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. A-401, 4th Floor, United Enclave Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd., 60 Feet Road,
Sant Kabir Road, Mahim. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 2 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1462 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10817 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V..P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Sow. Madhavi Indrasen Rele,
Age : 59 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. A-401, 4th Floor, United Enclave Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd., 60 Feet Road,
Sant Kabir Road, Mahim.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10818 OF 2019
Popat S/o. Bajinath Gite,
Age : 51 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. H-2/512, 5th Floor, Suwarnalekha Lokagram
Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Lokkalyan HIG School, Kalyan (East). ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 3 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1459 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10818 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Popat S/o. Bajinath Gite,
Age : 51 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. H-2/512, 5th Floor, Suwarnalekha Lokagram
Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Lokkalyan HIG School, Kalyan (East).
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10819 OF 2019
Mohan S/o. Namdev Patole,
Age : Major, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Khatav, Taluka-Khatav,
District-Satara. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 4 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1455 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10819 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Mohan S/o. Namdev Patole,
Age : Major, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Khatav, Taluka-Khatav,
District-Satara.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10820 OF 2019
Pratap S/o. Ragunath Pawar,
Age : 46 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Shirur, Taluka-Shirur,
District-Pune. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 5 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1453 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10820 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Pratap S/o. Ragunath Pawar,
Age : 46 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Shirur, Taluka-Shirur,
District-Pune.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10821 OF 2019
Pramod S/o. Nathuram Gurav,
Age : 48 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Vele (Kumathi),
Taluka & District-Satara. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 6 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1449 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10821 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Pramod S/o. Nathuram Gurav,
Age : 48 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Vele (Kumathi),
Taluka & District-Satara.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10822 OF 2019
Kiran S/o. Mahadeo Girhe,
Age : 29 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. C/o. Sagar Bhagawan Bhosale,
At Post Shahupuri, Behind Khataukar Colony,
Plot No. 16, Samata Housing Society,
Taluka & District-Satara. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 7 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1446 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10822 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Kiran S/o. Mahadeo Girhe,
Age : 29 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. C/o. Sagar Bhagawan Bhosale,
At Post Shahupuri, Behind Khataukar Colony,
Plot No. 16, Samata Housing Society,
Taluka & District-Satara.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10823 OF 2019
Shrikant S/o. Gangaram Chaukekar,
Age : 58 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. A-4/016, Nupur Lokpuram,
Pokhran Road No. 2, Thane (West),
Taluka & District-Thane. ...Petitioner
Versus
Gitalaxmi Page 8 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1441 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10823 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Shrikant S/o. Gangaram Chaukekar,
Age : 58 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. A-4/016, Nupur Lokpuram,
Pokhran Road No. 2, Thane (West),
Taluka & District-Thane.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10824 OF 2019
Kishor S/o. Tukaram Wani,
Age : 52 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Ward No. 4, Vaishali Nagar, Mhasala,
Taluka & District-Wardha. ...Petitioner
Gitalaxmi Page 9 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1443 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10824 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Kishor S/o. Tukaram Wani,
Age : 52 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Ward No. 4, Vaishali Nagar, Mhasala,
Taluka & District-Wardha.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10825 OF 2019
Sanjeevkumar S/o. Ramsingh Badgujar,
Age : 49 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. 278, Shukrawar Peth, Old Barvewada,
Near Chinchechi Talim, Pune,
Taluka & District-Pune. ...Petitioner
Gitalaxmi Page 10 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1445 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10825 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Sanjeevkumar S/o. Ramsingh Badgujar,
Age : 49 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. 278, Shukrawar Peth, Old Barvewada,
Near Chinchechi Talim, Pune,
Taluka & District-Pune.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
Gitalaxmi Page 11 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13168 OF 2019
Laxman S/o. Jagannath Chopde,
Age : 50 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Rahuri (Kh), Near Z.P. School,
Taluka-Rahuri, District-Ahmednagar. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 276 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 13168 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Laxman S/o. Jagannath Chopde,
Age : 50 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Rahuri (Kh), Near Z.P. School,
Taluka-Rahuri, District-Ahmednagar.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
Gitalaxmi Page 12 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13169 OF 2019
Husain S/o. Govindrao Atram,
Age : 48 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Vardhman Vishwa,
Ward No. 1, behind Tuljabhavani Mandir,
Borgaon Mege, Taluka & District-Wardha. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2393 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 13169 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Husain S/o. Govindrao Atram,
Age : 48 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Vardhman Vishwa,
Ward No. 1, behind Tuljabhavani Mandir,
Borgaon Mege, Taluka & District-Wardha.
Gitalaxmi Page 13 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13170 OF 2019
Bhimrao S/o Lahu Naik,
Age : 51 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Hadapsar Pune,
Taluka & District Pune. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2394 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 13170 OF 2019
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Bhimrao S/o Lahu Naik,
Age : 51 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. At Post Hadapsar Pune,
Taluka & District Pune.
Gitalaxmi Page 14 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13171 OF 2019
Sharad S/o. Ravan Naik,
Age : 57 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Flat No. 17, Siddheshwar Housing Society,
Old Ausa Road, Latur,
Taluka & District-Latur. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13173 OF 2019
Hemant S/o. Laxmanrao Lambe,
Age : 54 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Date College Road, Behind Vishwashanti
Buddhavihar, Old Umarsara,
Taluka & District-Yavatmal. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 15 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13175 OF 2019
Chhaya Prakash Gaydhane,
Age : 58 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Flat No. 1205, B-Wing, 12th Floor,
Rachana Medhsparsh Apartment,
Swalambi Nagar, Bhende Lay Out Nagpur. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3116 OF 2020
Dadasaheb S/o. Ravan Gaikwad,
Age : 56 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Near Bharatiya Vidyapith,
Konark Nagar, Solapur,
Taluka & District-Solapur. ...Petitioner
Versus
Gitalaxmi Page 16 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3117 OF 2020
Sudam S/o. Sopanrao Salve,
Age : 48 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Balaji Nagar, Northern Side of Trimurti,
Parbhani, Taluka & District-Parbhani. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
Gitalaxmi Page 17 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 272 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3117 OF 2020
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Sudam S/o. Sopanrao Salve,
Age : 48 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. Balaji Nagar, Northern Side of Trimurti,
Parbhani, Taluka & District-Parbhani.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3118 OF 2020
Shailja W/o. Pralhad Kale,
Age : 54 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. B-8, Konark Nagar,
Siddhivinayak Complex Solapur,
Taluka & District-Solapur. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
Gitalaxmi Page 18 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3118 OF 2020
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.VP.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Shailja W/o. Pralhad Kale,
Age : 54 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. B-8, Konark Nagar,
Siddhivinayak Complex Solapur,
Taluka & District-Solapur.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3119 OF 2020
Ramlal S/o Devidas Choudhari,
Age : 49 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. New Shantiniketan Colony, Jawahar Nagar,
Aurangabad, Taluka & District-Aurangabad.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
(Copy to be served on AGP of High Court of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad).
Gitalaxmi Page 19 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3119 OF 2020
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049. ...Applicant
Versus
1. Ramlal S/o Devidas Choudhari,
Age : 49 years, Occ.:Service,
R/o. New Shantiniketan Colony, Jawahar Nagar,
Aurangabad, Taluka & District-Aurangabad.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Welfare Department
To be served on Government Pleader,
Appellate Side, Aurangabad High Court. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1424 OF 2023
Santosh S/o. Gopal Rane,
Age : 50 years, Occupation:Service,
R/o. D-503, Shree Ameya Co-op. Housing Society,
Chogle Nagar, Borivali (E), Mumbai - 66. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Welfare of Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes,
Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Class Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
Gitalaxmi Page 20 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:53 :::
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
2. The Managing Director,
Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis & Nomadic Tribes
Development Corporation Limited,
Juhu Supreme Shopping Center,
Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,
J(RAUTT) Maski D.P.V. Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai-400 049.
(Respondent No. 1 to be served through
Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay) ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar i/b Mr. Vikrant S. Valse, Advocate for the Petitioners
in all the matters.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl.G.P., Ms. Priyanka
Chavan, AGP, Ms. Pooja Joshi-Deshpande, AGP, Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP, Ms.
P. N. Diwan, AGP, Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP, Mr. Abhijeet Naik, AGP, Ms. D. S.
Deshmukh, AGP, Mr. Abhishek Bhadang, AGP, Mr. Karan Thorat, 'B' Panel
Counsel, for the State-Respondent in all the matters.
Mr. Nishigandh N. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in all the matters.
__________
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 19th NOVEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.) :
-
1. Heard Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, respective learned AGPs for the State-Respondent and Mr.
Nishigandh Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
2. The learned Advocates for the parties jointly submit that since
the points/issues raised in all these Petitions are similar, as such all these
Petitions can be heard together and disposed off by a common judgment.
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
They further submit that facts in all these Petitions are almost similar and
Writ Petition No. 3120 of 2020 be considered as a lead Petition.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard all the Petitions
finally with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
4. Grievance of the Petitioners in the present Petitions is against
the orders dated 21/02/2019 and 06/03/2019 passed by the Managing
Director of Vasantrao Naik Vimukat Jatis and Nomadic Tribes,
Development Corporation Ltd. (VJ & NT Corporation Ltd.), by which
Respondent No. 2 has directed recovery of amount of the increments and
recovery of benefits of the 6th Pay Commission paid to the Petitioners
from 01/01/2006.
5. The facts leading to filing of these Petitions are as under :-
a. Petitioners in the Petition are employees of VJ & NT Corporation
Ltd. Petitioners are/were working on various posts viz. Class-II, Class-III
and Class-IV categories. VJ & NT Corporation Ltd. is a Government of
Maharashtra Undertaking. Aims and object of VJ & NT Corporation Ltd.
is to provide financial assistance by way of subsidized loans to a person
belonging to VJ & NT Community, as notified by the Government of
Maharashtra. VJ & NT Corporation Ltd. is fully funded by the
Government of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
of VJ & NT Corporation Ltd.
b. Vide Government Resolution dated 19/11/2007, the State of
Maharashtra sanctioned increments to the employees of Respondent No.
2. Said increments were paid to the Petitioners.
c. Vide Government Resolution dated 26/06/2012, the benefits of 6 th
Pay Commission were applied to the employees of Respondent No. 2
w.e.f. 26/06/2012. As per the said Government Resolution "All the
employees on regular employment of Respondent No. 2 are to be granted
revised Pay Scale as per recommendations of 6th Pay Commission".
However, it was clarified that the revised Pay Scale is implemented w.e.f.
26/06/2012 and therefore, no arrears are payable to the employees of
Respondent No. 2. Clause 4 of the said Government Resolution
mentioned that employees of Respondent No. 2 are not eligible for
special benefits and if such benefits are already granted, then it should be
stopped with immediate effect and also recovered from the salaries in
installment.
d. Vide Resolutions dated 12/09/2012 and 08/03/2013, the Board of
Directors of VJ & NT Corporation Ltd. sanctioned increments to the
Petitioners. Said Board Meeting held on 12/09/2012 was attended by the
Secretary, Social Justice Department in the capacity of Chairman, the
Managing Director of Mahatma Phule Magaswargiya Vikas Mahamandal
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
Limited and Respondent No. 2.
e. In addition, the Petitioners were granted additional increment for
their good work by Respondent No. 2 in terms of their decision in its
Board Meeting dated 10/06/2013.
f. Vide Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017, the State of
Maharashtra took a decision that any additional increment granted during
the period from 01/10/2006 to 01/10/2015 should not be paid.
g. Vide Circular dated 07/04/2018, Respondent No. 2 relying on the
Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017, cancelled all the additional
increments and the benefits of the 6 th Pay Commission given to all the
employees of Respondent No. 2 and directed to recover the same by 6
equal installments.
h. Respondent No. 2 in the meeting of the Board of Directors of VJ
& NT Corporation Ltd. held on 11/04/2018, by Resolution No. 3(1)
resolved that those increments/additional increments, granted to the
employees of Respondent No. 2, which were not as per the Government
Resolution, should be recovered from the employees. As a result of the
said Resolution, Respondent No. 2 vide Circular dated 29/08/2018
cancelled all the increments paid to the Petitioners and other similarly
situated employees and revised the Pay Fixation by further directions to
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
recover the said increments from the monthly salary of the Petitioners.
i. Petitioners along with the other employees of Respondent No. 2
vide their representations dated 30/08/2018 and 04/09/2018, requested
Respondent No. 2 to recall its order of revised Pay Fixation and recovery
of dues.
j. As the representations made by the Petitioners were not considered
and Respondent No. 2 was proceeding with the recoveries, Petitioners
and other employees of the VJ & NT Corporation Ltd., approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition/s seeking to quash and set aside the Circular
dated 29/08/2018. By order dated 06/12/2018, this Court quashed the
action of recovery initiated by Respondent No. 2 and remitted the case of
Petitioners to Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration after giving
Petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Upon remand, Petitioners filed
their detailed reply opposing the recovery.
k. By order dated 21/02/2019, Respondent No. 2 directed the
recovery of arrears of 6th Pay Commission paid to the employees of
Corporation from 01/01/2006 and further directed the recovery of
additional increments from the salary of employees, thereby concluding
that the Petitioners were wrongfully paid increments as well as difference
of salary as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendation. Accordingly,
the order with respect to the recovery of amount from the Petitioners was
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
passed on 06/03/2019.
6. The status of Petitioners as on the date of these Petitions and
the respective details with reference to the amounts paid, date of recovery
of excess payment made, are summarized in the following table :-
Designation of the Petitioners (22 Employees)
Amount
claimed to be
Name of Designation the excess
Sr.
the WP No. as on Status Class payment
No.
Employee 08.03.2013 made to the
Petitioners
(in Rupees)
Working, Class II
District II
1. K.T. Wani 10284/2019 Working 4,83,969
Manager
S.R. District II
2. 10285/2019 Working 5,46,489
Badgujar Manager
District II
3. P.R. Pawar 10820/2019 Working 1,35,652
Manager
District Working
4. D.A. Sangle 3120/2020 II 4,46,490
Manager
District II
5. S.G. Rane 1424/2023 Working 11,14,584
Manager
Working, Class III
6. S.S. Chavan 10816/2019 Clerk Working III 4,16,863
7. P.B. Gite 10818/2019 Clerk Working III 10,10,578
Office
8. K.M. Grihe 10822/2019 Working III 1,35,672
Assistant
H.G. Office
9. 13169/2019 Working III 3,74,735
Gaikwad Assistant
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
10. B.L. Naik 13170/2019 Clerk Working III 7,22,019
R.D.
11. 3119/2020 Clerk Working III 2,60,950
Chowdhari
Working, Class IV
12. P.N. Gurav 10821/2019 Peon Working IV 2,62,683
13. S.S. Salve 3117/2020 Peon Working IV 2,63,456
Retired, Class IV
Retired in IV
14. M.N. Patole 10819/2019 Peon 2,57,974
Retired, Class II
S.G. District Retired II
15. 10823/2019 9,66,974
Chowkekar Manager 31.10.2019
District II
16. S.R. Naik 13171/2019 July 2022 8,04,854
Manager
Retired
C.P. District II
17. 13175/2019 31.10.2019 17,73,881
Gaidhane Manager
Retired, Class III
Retired
18. M.I. Rele 10817/2019 Steno/Clerk 30.06.2019 III 14,23,079
Office Retired
19. S.P. Kale 3118/2019 III 3,74,441
Assistant Sept 2022
Office Retired
20. H.L. Lambe 13173/2019 III 3,32,477
Assistant Sept 2022
Expired, Class III
D.R. Office
21. 3116/2020 Expired III 5,08,971
Gaikwad Assistant
Expired, Class IV
L.G. Expired
22. 13168/2019 Peon IV 3,03,071
Chopde
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
7. Petitioners contend that the amounts, which are sought to be
recovered as excess payment, were paid to the Petitioners in the year
2012-2013 and the order of recovery of the said amount was passed on
06/03/2019, i.e., after 5 years of the benefits being extended to the
Petitioners. Petitioners are thus before this Court. Substantive relief as
prayed (Writ Petition No. 3120 of 2020), is extracted herein below :-
"B] Be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 21/02/2019
and 06/03/2019 passed by the Managing Director of Vasantrao Naik
Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes Development Corporation Ltd.,
Mumbai."
8. By order dated 25/04/2019, the Respondents were directed not
to take coercive steps against the Petitioners in the nature of recovery,
pending disposal of these Petitions.
9. Respondent No. 2 has opposed the present Petitions.
Respondent No. 2 contends that the then In-charge Managing Director of
VJ & NT Corporation Ltd. in contravention of Government Resolution
dated 26/06/2012, granted 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01/01/2006 and
arrears to the Petitioners and that the Petitioners were illegally given
advance increments. It is further contended that at the time of receipt of
financial benefits, Petitioners had executed Indemnity Undertaking by
which the Petitioners had undertaken that in the event of any future
objection being raised to the said payment, the same be recovered by
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
deducting from salary, as such the Petitioners were bound to return the
excess amount paid to them, which the Petitioners were not entitled to. It
is contended that pursuant to the order dated 06/12/2018, passed by this
Court, Respondent No. 2 had afforded a hearing to the Petitioners and
Respondent No. 2 had passed a reasoned order dated 06/03/2013
directing recovery.
10. Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners as
well as Mr. Nishigandh Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2
have canvassed arguments and submitted their written submissions.
11. Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
submits that most of the Petitioners are Class-III and Class-IV
employees. He submits that on the date of order directing recovery,
several employees were either retired or were on the verge of retirement.
He submits that the Petitioners were granted benefit in the year 2012-
2013 and the order for recovery was passed on 06/03/2019, i.e. after 5
years of the benefits being extended to the Petitioners, as such, recovery
of the said amount would be iniquitous, harsh and would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. He submits that the
undertakings referred to by Respondent No. 2 cannot be relied upon, as
the same being undated and the signatures are obtained on the Revenue
Stamp. He submits that similar benefits of 6th Pay Commission were
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
granted to the employees of Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas
Mahamandal vide Government Resolution dated 30/07/2013, however,
no recoveries have been initiated against them. He relies on the
following judgments :-
a. Ravindra Vana Patil v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.1,
b. State of Punjab v/s. Rafiq Masih2,
c. Dr. Nivruti S/o. Baliram Kalyan v/s. The State of Maharashtra and
Others3,
d. Manohar Bappaji Gaikwad v/s. The State of Maharashtra and
Others4,
e. Jayshree Trimbak Takalkar and Others v/s. The Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Parishad, Aurangabad and Others5,
f. The State of Maharashtra and Others v/s. Rekha Vijay Dubey and
Others6,
g. Laxminarayan S/o. Sayanna Kadewar v/s. The State of Maharashtra
and Another7 and
h. Mr. Martand Rambhau Sanap v/s. Vasantrao Naik VJ & NT
Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.8.
12. Mr. Nishigandh Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2
submits that the Petitioners were illegally granted the increments and the
arrears by the then Managing Director of VJ & NT Corporation Ltd. He
1. Writ Petition No. 12699 of 2018 and other connected matters decided on 3rd April, 2019.
2. 2015(1)CLJ (SC) 192.
3. Writ Petition No. 11228 of 2015 decided on 21st December, 2015.
4. MANU/MH/4257/2022.
5. MANU/MH/3431/2017.
6. 2021(III) CLR 630.
7. Writ Petition No. 15156 of 2019 decided on 12th September, 2024.
8. Writ Petition No. 9524 of 2021 decided on 24th January, 2025.
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
submits that the Auditor upon inquiry, had observed that unwarranted
payments were made to the employees by the then Managing Director
against whom Respondent No. 2 has filed the criminal proceedings. He
submits that the Petitioners having executed the Indemnity Undertaking,
are estopped from contending to the contrary. He submits that
Respondent No. 2 after considering the case, has passed the detailed
orders on 21/02/2019 and 06/03/2019. He relies on the following
judgments :-
a. State of Punjab and Others v/s. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
Others9 and
b. High Court of Punjab and Haryana v/s. Jagdev Singh10.
13. We have considered the records, oral submissions advanced by
the learned Advocates for the parties as well as the written submissions
placed on record.
14. Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 21/02/2019 and
06/03/2019 essentially on four grounds : firstly, that the alleged recovery
is sought after some of the Petitioners having retired (Writ Petition Nos.
3118/2019, 10817/2019, 10819/2019 & 13173/2019); secondly, that the
recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV in
service being impermissible (Writ Petition Nos. 10816/2019,
10818/2019, 10821/2019, 10822/2019, 13169/2019, 13170/2019,
9. 2015(4) SCC 334.
10. (2016)14 SCC 267.
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
3117/2020 & 3119/2020) and Petitioners ( Writ Petition Nos. 13168/2019
and 3116/2020), who are since deceased ; thirdly, that the recovery from
the retired Class-II employees (Writ Petition Nos. 10823/2019 &
13175/2019), were due to retire within 1 year of the order of recovery
and fourthly, that the recovery from Class-II employees (Writ Petition
No. 13171/2019) being impermissible, such payments being made for a
period in excess of 5 years before the order of recovery.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir
and Others v/s. State of Bihar and Others11 in Paragraph Nos. 57 & 58
has observed as under :-
"57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against
recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess
amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the
part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the
employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance
or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is
subsequently found to be erroneous.
58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any
right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve
the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered.
But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the
payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in
cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong
payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on
the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the
amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1)
SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India
[(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of
India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967], V.
Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652], Col.
11. (2009)3 SCC 475.
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India [(2006) 11 SCC 709 : (2007) 1 SCC
(L&S) 529], Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar [(2006) 11 SCC 492 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 508], Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh [(2006)
8 SCC 647 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur
[(2000) 10 SCC 99 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 394]."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) (supra) after having considered its earlier pronouncements, in
Paragraph No. 18 referred to situation, wherein recovery from the
employees would be impermissible in law, which reads as follows :-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which
would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have
mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be
that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as
a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law :
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV
service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are
due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has
been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of
recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been
required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid
accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that
recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or
arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance
of the employer's right to recover."
17. Respondent No. 2 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), more particularly
Paragraph No. 11 in support of its contention that the Petitioners, who
were put on notice that if the payment found to be in excess, same would
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
be recovered from their salaries. The said Paragraph No. 11 reads as
follows :-
"11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply
to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer
to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed
on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be
required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while
opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking."
18. The case of Laxminarayan (supra) before this Court, was a
case of a employee (Class-IV) working in VJ & NT Corporation Ltd.,
against whom recovery proceedings were commenced after 17 months of
his retirement. Facts pertaining to grant of increments and benefits under
the 6th Pay Commission, execution of the undated undertaking in
Laxminarayan (supra), being identical to the case in hand. This Court in
Paragraph Nos. 8 to 11 observed as under :-
"8. The learned Advocate for the employer points out an
undertaking purportedly executed by the Petitioner. We have perused the
said undertaking. On page no. 86, there is a signature scribbled on a
revenue stamp below the date, which is in typed form. Neither the name
of the Petitioner nor his designation as a Peon, neither the District
Collector's office where he was working, nor his address, is mentioned in
the said undertaking. The undertaking carries a date 07.09.2022. The
learned Advocate for the employer submits that the date has mistakenly
appeared on the said document. According to him, there is no date on the
said undertaking.
9. The Employer relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs.
Jagdev Singh [AIR 2016 SCW 3523]. The facts of the case in the said
judgment are distinguishable. In this case, the undertaking is undated
according to the employer. As a date 07.09.2022 appears on the
undertaking, the same does not seem to be executed earlier in point of
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
time.
10. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others,
2009(3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and others Vs.Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) etc., (2015) 4 SCC 334 = AIR 2015 SC 696, the Law is settled
that firstly the recoveries at the stroke of retirement would be
impermissible. Secondly, the recovery from a Class I employee at the
stroke of retirement or on the verge of retirement, would not be permitted.
11. In view of Jagdev Singh (supra), we are of the view that, if an
undertaking is executed on the date when the payment, increments or
payment of the monetary benefits commences, such an undertaking could
be pressed into service. In the instant case, the Petitioner is a Class IV
employee. Deductions are carried out 17 months after his retirement. The
undertaking is doubtful. No opportunity of hearing has been given to him.
The Law laid down in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) (supra), has apparently been ignored by the employer."
19. Records bear out that the undertakings are undated and
signatures of some of the Petitioners are obtained on Revenue Stamps.
The case of the Petitioners (Writ Petition Nos. 3118/2019, 10817/2019,
10819/2019 & 13173/2019), who are Class-III and Class-IV retired
employees, would be covered by the decision of this Court in the case of
Laxminarayan (supra).
20. The case of Petitioners (Writ Petition Nos. 10816/2019,
10818/2019, 10821/2019, 10822/2019, 13169/2019, 13170/2019,
3117/2020 & 3119/2020), who are Class-III and Class-IV employees and
the Petitioners (Writ Petition Nos. 13168/2019 & 3116/2020), who are
since deceased Class-III and Class-IV, would be covered in terms of
Paragraph No. 12(i) of the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
21. Two Petitioners belonging to Class-II service, have retired on
31/10/2019. The orders of recovery are dated 21/02/2019 and
06/03/2019, i.e. on the verge of the date of retirement of Petitioners in
Writ Petition Nos. 10823/2019 and 13175/2019 within one year from the
date the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13171/2019 was due to retire.
These Petitioners would be covered in terms of Paragraph No. 12(ii) of
the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
22. The order dated 06/03/2019 directing recovery makes a
reference to the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2017. Said
Resolution directed that the period of 6th Pay Commission being limited
to 01/01/2006 upto 01/12/2015 and no retrospective advance increments
to be granted to the employees. The period of payments made to the
Petitioners, which is the subject matter of these proceedings according to
the Petitioners is of 2012-2013, whereas according to Respondent No. 2
the difference amount of 6th Pay for the period from 01/01/2006 to
31/05/2012 was made by cheque on 29/05/2015. This Court in the case
of Ravindra Vana Patil (supra) in Paragraph No. 3 has held as follows :-
"3. The Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 will have prospective
effect and not retrospective and in that case benefit that was accorded to
Petitioners of excellent work in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, shall not be
withdrawn and if any recovery is made pursuant to the same, same shall be
refunded to the Petitioners."
23. Petitioner belonging to Class-II service in Writ Petition No.
WP-3120-2020+-J.odt
13171/2019 has superannuated in the month of July 2022. Petitioners in
Writ Petition Nos. 10284/2019, 10285/2019, 10820/2019, 3120/2020 &
1424/2023, are still in service. Taking into account that these Petitioners
were not involved in any mischief, fraud or deceit in orchestrating their
wrongful Pay Revision/increments, the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Rafiq
Masih (supra) would apply to the case in hand.
24. In view of the above, all these Petitions are partly allowed.
The orders dated 21/02/2019 and 06/03/2019 are quashed and set aside to
the extent of recovery of amount against the Petitioners.
25. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
26. In view of the above, all the Interim/Civil Applications become
infructuous, hence stand disposed off.
[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2025.11.19
15:19:49 +0530
