Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Devidas Vishnupant Salgarkar

Bombay HC25 Sept 2018WP/789/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by the State challenging a tribunal order allowing recovery of excess pay from a retired engineer. The High Court upheld the tribunal's decision, directing the State to pay the recovered amount within four months without interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to pay Rs. 1,20,668/- within four months; interest waived if paid within this period.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 789.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 789 OF 2018

¶4

The State of Maharashtra and others.. Petitioners
Versus

¶5

Devidas Vishnupant Salgarkar

¶6

.. Respondent

¶7

Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent /
Sole.

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATE: 25th September, 2018

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

1. The respondent had filed Original Application against the amount of recovery claimed by the petitioners. The Original Application is allowed.

¶11

Aggrieved thereby the State has filed the present
petition.

¶12

2. Mr. Sonpawale, the learned Assistant

¶13

Government Pleader submits that the respondent was
working as a Junior Engineer. He was granted
Ad-hoc promotion as a Sub Divisional Engineer and
his pay was fixed as a Sub Divisional Engineer

¶14

2 wp 789.18

¶15

which is erroneous. In view of that, recovery is
claimed. The recovery claimed is legal and proper.
The respondent cannot be allowed to retain the
amount paid excess. As per Rule 132 (1), (2) and
(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982 the amount paid in excess can be
recovered from the amount of gratuity payable and
credited to the Government head of the account.
The learned A.G.P. submits that the tribunal did
not consider the said aspect.

¶16

3.Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the Court has rightly
considered the judgment of the Apex Court in a
case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4
Supreme Court Cases 334. The recovery is claimed
in respect of the amount paid in excess for the
year 1998 to 2005 of Rs.65,330/- and an amount of
Rs. 55,338/- paid during 01.02.2006 till

¶17

31.05.2012. The same is not permissible. The
learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex

¶18

3 wp 789.18

¶19

Court in a case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others ( supra ).

¶20

4.We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶21

5.The respondent was substantively working on
Class – III post. He was granted Ad hoc promotion
on the post of Sub Divisional Engineer and his pay
was fixed as that of Sub Divisional Engineer which
the respondent it appears was not entitled to.

¶22

6.Be that as it may, the pay fixation was
initially done in the year 1998 - 2005. The
respondent stood retired on attaining the age of
superannuation in the month of May – 2012.

¶23

7. The Apex Court in a case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and

¶24

others ( supra ) has laid down five principles, the same are as under -

¶25

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

¶26

4 wp 789.18

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharg duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶30

(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.'

¶31

8. The respondent was substantively working on

¶32

Class – III post. It would tantamount to hardship
if the amount is sought to be recovered from the
respondent.

¶33

9.Considering all the aforesaid aspects, the

¶34

tribunal has not committed any error in passing
the impugned order.

¶35

10.The tribunal had directed the present

¶36

petitioners to pay the amount of Rs. 1,20,668/-

¶37

5 wp 789.18

¶38

within a period of six months from the date of the
order failing which the present petitioners would
be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12%

¶39

per annum from the date of the order till the
refund. This Court had granted Ad-interim relief
earlier.

¶40

11.Consideringtheabove,thepresent

¶41

petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,20,668/-
within a period of four months from today. If the
amount is paid within a period of four months, the
present petitioners shall not be liable to pay the
interest.

¶42

12.Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶43

No costs.

¶44

[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶45

marathe

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Devidas Vishnupant Salgarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Devidas Vishnupant Salgarkar

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

Shaikh Shafiq Shaikh Umar Vs Shaikh Naseer Ahmed Pasha Ansari

Mubarak Kha Yusuf Kha Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Karmvir Pratishthan, Ram Nagar, Jalna Thr. Its President and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrikant Govindrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Vs Mahaveer Damodhar Mane, Pune