Allowed

Mansing Padamsing Rajput v. the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer and Others

Bombay HC11 Sept 2019WP/2026/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oral order in six connected writ petitions challenging recovery of retiral benefits from retired Class-III employees due to alleged erroneous pay fixation. The court applied the State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih parameters, held iniquitous, and ordered recovery to be quashed with the return of amounts within four months.

What did the court decide?

Recovery orders quashed; respondents directed to return the recovered amount within four months.

Mansing Padamsing Rajput Vs the Zilla… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

wp11190.19

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11190 OF 2019

¶5

Shaikh Humayun Shaikh Nayyar .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.340 OF 2018

¶10

Dattatray Shankar Bhusande ..Petitioner

¶11

Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶12

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.341 OF 2018

¶15

Laxman Dattatray Wani ..Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶18

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶19

WRIT

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.342 OF 2018

¶21

Dhanraj Natthu Chavan ..petitioner

¶22

Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶23

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

wp11190.19

WRIT

WRIT PETITION NO.343 OF 2018

¶28

Prakash Navalsingh Baviskar ..Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶31

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶32

WITH

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO.344 OF 2018

¶34

Ravindra Sitaram Mahajan ..Petitioner Versus

¶35

The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶36

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶37

WITH

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO.345 OF 2018

¶39

Pandharinath Bhika Patil ..Petitioner

¶40

Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶41

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶42

WITH

¶43

WRIT PETITION NO.346 OF 2018

¶44

Usha Ranjitsing Rathod ..Petitioner

¶45

Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶46

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

wp11190.19

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.347 OF 2018

¶51

Baburao Kisan Darkonde ..Petitioner

¶52

Versus

¶53

The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶54

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶55

WITH

¶56

WRIT PETITION NO.348 OF 2018

¶57

Namdeo Dhondu Patil ..Petitioner Versus

¶58

The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶59

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶60

WITH

¶61

WRIT PETITION NO.349 OF 2018

¶62

Ashok Kruparam Chinchole ..Petitioner Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶63

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶64

WITH

¶65

WRIT PETITION NO.350 OF 2018

¶66

Nimba Sonu Teli ..Petitioner

¶67

Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶68

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

wp11190.19

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.351 OF 2018

¶73

Harchand Balchand Marathe ..Petitioner Versus

¶74

The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶75

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶76

WITH

¶77

WRIT PETITION NO.352 OF 2018

¶78

Shantaram Dayaram Khodke ..Petitioner

¶79

Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶80

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶81

WITH

¶82

WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2018

¶83

Ramabai Baburao Dhole ..Petitioner Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. ..Respondents

¶84

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2

¶85

AND

¶86

WRIT PETITION NO.2020 OF 2018

¶87

Sushila Ashok Deshmukh ..Petitioner

¶88

Versus

¶89

The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. .. Respondents

¶90

Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner

¶91

¶92

wp11190.19

¶93

Mr S.B. Munde, Advocate for respondent no.1

¶94

WITH

¶95

WRIT PETITION NO.2025 OF 2018

¶96

Kashinath Rama Shimpi ..Petitioner Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. .. Respondents Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.B. Munde, Advocate for respondent no.1

¶97

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2026 OF 2018 Mansing Padamsing Rajput ..Petitioner Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and ors. .. Respondents Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.B. Munde, Advocate for respondent no.1

¶98

AND

¶99

WRIT PETITION NO.8538 OF 2018

¶100

Satish Laxman Todkar ..Petitioner Versus The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer and ors. .. Respondents Mr Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.B. Munde, Advocate for respondent no.1

¶101

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶102

DATE : 11.09.2019

wp11190.19

ORAL ORDER :

The petitioners are challenging the recovery made by the respondents from the retiral benefits.

¶107

Mr Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White washer), reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. Learned Counsel submits that after retirement, recovery is made by the respondents from the retiral benefits on the ground that pay fixation was wrongly done. It is not disputed that the petitioners are retired as Class-III employees.

¶108

Learned Counsel for respondent-Zilla Parishad submits that the petitioners cannot take advantage of erroneous pay fixation. If the directions are given to refund the amount to the petitioners, then the petitioners would be unjustly enriched. The respondents have authority to recover the amount paid by mistake.

¶109

Pay fixation was done in the year 2013. The case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment of Apex Court of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White washer) (supra) , wherein the Apex Court laid down the following parameters.

¶110

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

¶111

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

¶112

¶113

wp11190.19

¶114

(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.

¶115

(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.

¶116

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employees, 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.

¶117

All the parameters laid down in the judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) are fulfilled. In light of the above, orders to the extent of recovery are quashed and set aside. The respondents shall return the amount recovered from the petitioners within a period of four months from today.

¶118

Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶119

( ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶120

( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶121

vvr

Mansing Padamsing Rajput v. the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansing Padamsing Rajput v. the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer 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

Minakshi Pandharinath Patil Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Chief Executive Officer and Another

Bhaiyyasaheb Hiraji Patil Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Chief Executive Officer and Another

Nalini Baliram Chaudhari Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Chief Executive Officer and Another

Kashinath Rama Shimpi Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Satish Laxman Todkar Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon Thorugh Its Chief Executive Officer and Others

Laxman Dattatray Wani Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another