Allowed

Laltaprasad M. Yadav. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2018WP/2629/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed an order directing recovery of excess pension paid to the petitioner on grounds of erroneous age condonation, relying on the Supreme Court holding that recovery is impermissible in such cases, and directed pension regularization.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 19th May 2012 and 19th March 2012 quashed; petitioner to receive regular pension from March 2018; arrears to be cleared within three months.

Laltaprasad M. Yadav. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

YBG

910-os-wp-2629-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2629 OF 2012

¶6

Laltaprasad M. Yadav .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra through Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rahul G. Walia for petitioner

¶8

Mr. Kedar Dighe, Asst. Government Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr. H.C.Pimple for respondent Nos.2 to 4 Corporation.

¶9

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 18^th January 2018.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by

¶12

consent.

¶13

2] The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by

¶14

the order dated 19^th May 2012. By the impugned order, the respondent No.2 has directed a recovery to be made of the excess amount paid to the petitioner.

YBG

910-os-wp-2629-12

3] A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher from 1^st July 1992. It further appears that immediately a proposal for grant of approval was sent by the respondent No.5 to respondent No.2. It also appears that the said proposal could not be decided since the petitioner had crossed maximum age on the date of his appointment and his case was pending before the Education Officer. It also appears that the Education Officer vide his order dated 12^th December 2003 condoned the issue of over age. Subsequently vide order dated 6^th September 2004, the appointment of petitioner as Head Teacher came to be approved.

¶19

4] The impugned order came to be passed on 19^th May 2012. The petitioner immediately approached this Court subsequent to the passing of impugned order. In response to the notice issued by this Court Mr. Rajiv Tadavi, Deputy Education Officer in the employment of Mumbai Municipal Corporation has filed his reply.

¶20

5] The petition is mainly opposed on the ground that it involves various disputed questions on fact. It is with regard to the

YBG

910-os-wp-2629-12

petitioner's appointment as an Assistant teacher and the fact regarding condonation of his over age is also not disputed. Not only that, but a perusal of the reply would reveal that the period for which the petitioner was under suspension has also been condoned.

¶25

6] A perusal of the said affidavit would also reveal that it cannot be said that the approval which was granted to the petitioner was granted on some mis-representation. All the relevant details were available with the respondent authorities when the approval was granted vide order 6^th September 2004.

¶26

7] In this view of the matter, we find that the recovery at the fag end of petitioner's service will not be permissible. The Apex Court in the case of Sayyed Abdul Qadir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2009) 3 S.C.C. 475 in para 5 has held that if an amount is paid to the employee, recovery on the basis of such erroneous fixation would not be permissible.

¶27

8] In this view of the matter, Rule is made absolute by quashing

¶28

and setting aside the impugned orders dated 19^th May 2012 and 19^th

YBG

910-os-wp-2629-12

March 2012.

9] It is informed that the petitioner has already been

¶34

superannuated from the service. A perusal of report would reveal that in para 4(l) the Corporation itself has stated that it will release the dues of the petitioner after completion of all the formalities within a reasonable period. We direct the Corporation that the regular pension should be paid to the petitioner from the month of March 2018 on the basis of his last drawn salary and all the arrears shall be cleared within a period of three months from today.

¶35

Petition disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶36

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J) ( B.R.GAVAI, J.)

Laltaprasad M. Yadav. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laltaprasad M. Yadav. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

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

Bhanudas S/O Eknath Kotkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hrishikesh Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar Vs Babasaheb Darekar and Ors.

Hareshkumar Dhansukhlal Shah Vs Sasmira and 3 Others

Shri Sahadeo Namdeo More Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Dnyandeo Madhukar Randhir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.