Single bench quashed recovery orders against retired employees for excess pay fixation exceeding five years, applying Rafiq Masih parameters. Relief granted includes refund if any recovery was made.
Recovery orders quashed; petitioners to be refunded recovery within four months if made.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
170-172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
170 WRIT PETITION NO.2465 OF 2019
WITH WP/2473/2019 WITH WP/2474/2019
RAMESH BABURAO NAGPURE
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE ZILLA PARISHAD JALGAON THROUGH ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS
Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. G. L. Deshpande, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
WITH
172 WRIT PETITION NO.2690 OF 2019
WITH WP/2710/2019 WITH WP/2733/2019 WITH
WP/2783/2019 WITH WP/2785/2019 WITH WP/2786/2019
WITH WP/2794/2019 WITH WP/2795/2019 WITH
WP/2796/2019
MINAKSHI PANDHARINATH PATIL..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE ZILLA PARISHAD JALGAON THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND ANOTHER..RESPONDENTS
Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. P. Tiwari, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 to 2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2019.
PER COURT:-
(2)
170-172
1.The petitions are filed to the extent of
recovery claimed.
2.Mr. Patil, learned counsel for petitioners
submits that petitioners have retired from service.
From the retiral benefits, recovery is claimed by
respondent no.2. If recovery is claimed, hardship
would be caused to petitioners. The petitioners
are not responsible for wrong pay fixation. The
learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334.
3.Mr. Sonawane, learned counsel submits that
petitioners had given an undertaking that they will
refund the excess amount paid on account of wrong
pay fixation.
4.It is not disputed that petitioners
retired from service. The petitioners at the time
of retirement were working as Class III employees.
The undertaking according to respondents is given
in the year 2009 and the benefit was granted to
petitioners in the year 2013. In view of that, the
undertaking would be of no avail.
5.The recovery claimed is beyond five years
of the benefit given.
(3) 170-172
6.The Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) has laid down
following parameters for not allowing recovery on
account of wrong pay fixation:-
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(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.
(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.
(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.
7.All the parameters laid down by the Apex
Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih
(supra) are attracted in the present case.
(4) 170-172
8.In light of the above, impugned orders to
the extent of recovery are quashed and set aside.
9.Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
10.In case, recovery is made by respondents,
the same shall be refunded to petitioners within a
period of four (04) months.
(ANIL S. KILOR) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/September-19
3 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery from retired Class III employees on account of wrong pay fixation exceeding five years is permitted.
Whether the underta
Whether recovery would be iniquitous or harsh in view of the Rafiq Masih parameters.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and othersApplied¶22
2015 (4) SCC 334 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Baburao Nagpure
Minakshi Pandharinath Patil
The Zilla Parishad Jalgaon
S. V. Gangapurwala
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court