Allowed

Narayan Shravan Shingane and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Apr 2010WP/316/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two retired assistant teachers filed two Writ Petitions challenging the State's recovery of difference in pay scales after retirement. They argued no fraud was committed as the authorities assumed their course was equivalent to B.Ed. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the recovery and directing refund with interest.

What did the court decide?

Quashed recovery of pay scale difference; directed respondents to refund amounts within three months with 8% interest thereafter.

Narayan Shravan Shingane and Anr. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 316 OF 2010

¶4

1.	Narayan S/o Shravan Shingane	}
	Age : 60 Years, Occ. Pensioner,	}
	R/o : Vidyavihar Colony,	}
	Amalner, Tq. Amalner,	}
	Dist. : Jalgaon	}
2.	Madhukar S/o Hari Nikam	}
	Age : 64 Years, Occ. Pensioner,	}
	R/o : Deshmukh Bungalow,	}
	Amalner, Tq. Amalner,	}
	Dist. : Jalgaon	}	.... PETITIONERS
	*V E R S U S*
1.	The State of Maharashtra	}
	Through the Secretary,	}
	Education Department	}
	Mantralaya, Mumbai.	}
2.	The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon	}
	Through its	}
	Chief Executive Officer.	}
3.	The Accounts Officer (II)	}
	Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.	}
4.	The Block Education Officer	}
	Panchayat Samiti, Amalner,	}
	Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.	}	.... RESPONDENTS

¶5

¶6

Mr. A.D.Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr. C.A.Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. B.S.Mundhe, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

¶7

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ.

¶8

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29/04/2010

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS J.)

¶10

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶11

the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶12

The petitioners claim to have been appointed as Assistant Teachers and now have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners had passed examination of Hindi Sahitya Sudhakar in the year 1990 from Bombay Hindu University. The petitioners came to be appointed as Assistant Teachers and paid scale admissible to the trained graduate teacher, was paid to the petitioners. After their retirement, it transpired that the petitioners were not entitled for the pay scale of a trained graduate teacher as there was no equivalence with the examination alleged to have been successfully cleared by the petitioners with B.Ed. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 48,000/- came to be recovered from petitioner no. 1 and an amount of Rs. 13,000/- came to be recovered from petitioner no. 2. The petitioners have filed this

¶13

¶14

petition challenging the impugned action.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 3596 of 2009 dated 26/8/2009 – Samadhan Patil V/s State of Maharashtra and others. The Division Bench placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Babulal Jain V/s State of M.P. and others AIR 2007 SCW - 2756 . In the aforesaid Judgment, the Supreme Court had held that no fraud was practiced and no material was suppressed by the petitioner and as soon as the petitioner thereafter had worked on the higher post, the recovery was quashed by the Supreme Court.

¶16

The present case is also on similar lines. The petitioners had not withheld any information from the respondents nor they had supplied any false information so as to mislead the authorities into granting them the pay scale of trained graduate teachers. The respondents had granted the pay scale of trained graduate teacher on the assumption that the course for which the petitioners had appeared, was equivalent to B.Ed. Degree course. In such circumstances, according to us, recovery of the pay scale paid to the petitioner is only unjust. Apart from this, the petitioners had actually worked and, therefore, were entitled to have paid the aforesaid amount.

¶17

¶18

We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the alleged recovery made from the retiral benefits of the petitioners and directs the respondents to forthwith refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioners within three months from today. In the event, the aforesaid amount is not refunded within three months from today, the amount so deducted by the respondents, shall carry interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of deduction of the amount till the amount is actually paid to the petitioners.

¶19

In respect of prayer clause ‘ C ’ to the petition, the learned counsel states that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to submit representation to the authorities.

¶20

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms by granting liberty as prayed to the petitioners with no order as to costs.

¶21

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ]

JUDGE

JUDGE

knp/WP 316.10 ( J )

Narayan Shravan Shingane and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Shravan Shingane and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Macchindra Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharif Khan Insmail Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chanchal Daulal Bhandari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjivan Devidas Ghogare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sudhakar Bhanudas Gaikwad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raja Khanderao Rangrao Deshmukh Vs the Collector Nanded