Allowed

Jagdishchandra Shankarlal Sharma and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Bombay HC11 Sept 2018WP/1124/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed petition quashing recovery notices for excess pay from retired Class-III/IV employees, relying on Supreme Court principles prohibiting recovery after five years, hardship, and erroneous fixation. Ordered release of 5th and 6th pay commission benefits.

What did the court decide?

Quashed recovery notices; directed respondent to release 5th and 6th pay commission benefits within four months.

Jagdishchandra Shankarlal Sharma and Others… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp1124.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1124 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.28001 OF 2018

¶5

JAGDISHCHANDRA SHANKARLAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERS

¶7

Mr. R.R.Mandir, Advocate for the petitioners
Mrs.M.A.Deshpande,AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.D.S.Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :11.09.2018

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

Mr.Mantri, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that all these petitioners were working on
Class-III, Class-IV post with respondent No.2 Municipal
Corporation. All these petitioners have retired long
back. After their retirement the recovery is sought to
be claimed from the petitioners under notices dated
26.10.2015 and 27.10.2015 on the ground of wrong pay
fixation. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners
have not misrepresented while fixing their pay.
Respondent No.2 on its own volition fixed the pay scale
of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel,
hardship would be caused if recovery is claimed at this
stage from the pension amount. The learned counsel
relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in case of State
of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in
2014, SCC 883.

¶11

2.Mr.Bagul, the learned counsel for respondent

¶12

( 2 ) wp1124.16

¶13

No.2 submits that under erroneous pay fixation the
petitioners were benefited with the excess amount. If
petitioners are allowed to retain amount, it would
amount to unjust enrichment. According to the learned
counsel, as per the audit report the petitioners have
been paid excess amount as such the respondents are
entitled for the recovery of the same.

¶14

3.We have considered the submissions. It is not
disputed that all these petitioners were Class-III and
Class-IV employees. The petitioners have retired from
service. After retirement, recovery is claimed from
them. The recovery is claimed beyond five years of the
benefit given to them. It would result in to hardship if
recovery is directed at this stage from pensionery
amount.

¶15

4.The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab
Versus Rafiq Masih (Supra) has laid down the following
principles.

¶16

"12. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference,
summarise the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:

¶17

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-
III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group
D service).

¶18

(ii)Recovery from retired employees, or
employees who are due to retire within one
year, of the order recovery.

¶19

( 3 ) wp1124.16

¶20

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in excess of
five years, before the order of recovery is
issued.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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 employers
right to recover."

¶23

5.The case of the petitioners comes within
parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Punjab (Supra).

¶24

6.In light of the above the recovery claimed
against the petitioners by impugned notices are quashed
and set aside. The respondent shall release the benefits
of 5th and 6th pay commission if the same is admissible
to the petitioners expeditiously preferably within four
months. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed. No
costs.

¶25

7.Petitioner No.2 is dead. Leave to bring on
record the legal heirs of petitioner No.2. Civil
Application (St) No. 28001 of 2018 is allowed in terms
of prayer clause B and C.

¶26

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

¶27

 [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶28

ssp/Sept.18/ wp1124.16

Jagdishchandra Shankarlal Sharma and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdishchandra Shankarlal Sharma and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

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

Adarsh Jeevan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Dattatray Petkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vimal Sopan Mudgudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Dattatraya Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ab Wahab Haji Abdul Reheman, Lrs Gulam Ahmad Wahab and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikala Pitambar Firke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others