Allowed

Bhaskar Shankarrao Joshi and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Feb 2015WP/2180/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired lecturers challenged recovery of stagnation increment from their pension. The High Court of Bombay held that recovery is not permissible post-retirement, directed return of amounts taken with 8% interest, and ruled accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of stagnation increment from pension disallowed; already recovered amount to be refunded with 8% interest; rule made absolute.

Bhaskar Shankarrao Joshi and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 wp 2180.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2180 OF 2015

¶4

Mr. Bhaskar Shankarrao Joshi, Age : 67 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Vyankatandri Bungalow, Chausalkar Colony, Yogeshwari, College Road, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

¶5

Mr. Dnyanoba Mukundrao Panchal, (Since deceased) through Smt. Suman W/o Dnyanoba Panchal, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Vidya Nagar, Ring Road, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

¶6

Mr. Nagnath Shankarrao Jalde, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Shrinagar Colony, Mandva Road, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

¶7

Mr. Purushottam Sitaram Kulkarni, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Ridhi Apartment, Block No. 102, Mayurban Road, Latur.

¶8

Mr. Balwant Sahebrao Pawar, Age : 66 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o C/o Kakasaheb Sarvade, Vishal Nagar, Old M.I.D.C. Road, Latur.

¶9

Mr. Ramkrushna Nivruttirao Deoshatwar, Age : 66 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Laxmi Niwas, Bansilal Nagar, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

¶10

	2 wp 2180.15
7.	Mr. Vasant Bapuji Muttepawar, Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Raja Bansilal Nagar, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
8.	Mr. Vilas Keshavrao Kulkarni, Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Prabhu Kunj, Keshav Nagar, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed.
9.	Mr. Chandrakant Dhondu Bhandari, Age : 63 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Mai Niwas, Kalpana Colony, Ring Road, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
10.	Mr. Subhashchandra Rameshwar Gupta, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Bansilal Nagar Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
11.	Mr. Prabhakar Rangrao Borade, Age : 64 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Vidya Nagar, Ring Road, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
12.	Mr. Patil Manohar Vishwanath, Age : 67 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o House No. 8-7-51, MIG 28, KHB Colony, Bidar.
13.	Mr. Latpate Dnyanoba Manaji, Age : 67 Years, Occu. : Pensioner, R/o Bansilal Nagar, Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioners
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,

¶11

3 wp 2180.15

¶12

Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶13

The Director of Higher Education Maharashtra State Pune.

¶14

The Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. .. Respondents

¶15

Shri Sudhir G. Bhalerao, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri G. K. Thigle, Addl.G.P. for All Respondents.

¶16

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. L ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2015.

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

¶18

. Rule. The learned Additional Government Pleader waives notice of rule for all respondents. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties.

¶19

Mr. Bhalerao, the learned counsel submits that, the petitioners are lecturers who have retired long back. The stagnation increment which were paid to the petitioners is sought to be recovered now. The learned counsel submits that, after retirement the same cannot be allowed to be recovered. The learned counsel relies on various orders passed by this Court from page Nos. 74 to 88.

¶20

4 wp 2180.15

¶21

The learned Additional Government Pleader does not dispute that, the petitioners are similarly situated with the petitioners in which the orders are passed by this Court directing refund of recovery along with interest.

¶22

Considering the fact that, all petitioners are retired lecturers who have been earlier paid stagnation increment and this Court in similar set of facts has passed various orders. Such an order is passed by this Court on 22nd August, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 9054/2010 with other connected writ petitions. We also follow the same course.

¶23

5. In the light of that, we pass the following order.

¶24

The respondents are not entitled to recover the amount from the pension of the petitioners of the stagnation increment which is sought to be recovered. In so far as the amount which is already recovered from the pension of the petitioners is concerned, it is directed that, such amount be returned back to petitioners within a period of three (3) months from the date of this order along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

¶25

Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶26

Sd/Sd/[ V. L ACHLIYA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Feb. 15

Bhaskar Shankarrao Joshi and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Shankarrao Joshi and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Purushottam Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashkikant Digambarrao Badve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Sai Samarth Industrial Training Institute, Jalgaon Vs the Union of India and Others

Pravin Chandrakant Ingole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Puja Prakash Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Ashok Shahadeo Khande and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Another