Allowed

Nalini Shenfadu Nehate v. the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Bombay HC9 Sept 2019WP/2795/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad, quashed writ petitions challenging recovery of excess retirement benefits wrongfully paid to retired Class III employees. Relying on the Rafiq Masih judgment, the court held that recovery is barred when the excess payment spans over five years, as it is iniquitous or harsh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders to the extent of recovery were quashed and set aside; petitions disposed of;

Nalini Shenfadu Nehate Vs the Zilla Parishad… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(1)

¶2

170-172

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

170 WRIT PETITION NO.2465 OF 2019
WITH WP/2473/2019 WITH WP/2474/2019

¶5

RAMESH BABURAO NAGPURE

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE ZILLA PARISHAD JALGAON THROUGH ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶9

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.

¶10

WITH

¶11

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

¶12

MINAKSHI PANDHARINATH PATIL..PETITIONERS

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

THE ZILLA PARISHAD JALGAON THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND ANOTHER..RESPONDENTS

¶15

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.

¶16

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶17

 DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2019.

¶18

PER COURT:-

¶19

(2)

¶20

170-172

¶21

1.The petitions are filed to the extent of
recovery claimed.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

5.The recovery claimed is beyond five years
of the benefit given.

¶26

(3) 170-172

¶27

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:-

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

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.

¶34

(4) 170-172

¶35

8.In light of the above, impugned orders to
the extent of recovery are quashed and set aside.

¶36

9.Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶37

10.In case, recovery is made by respondents,
the same shall be refunded to petitioners within a
period of four (04) months.

¶38

(ANIL S. KILOR) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶39

Devendra/September-19

Nalini Shenfadu Nehate v. the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini Shenfadu Nehate v. the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

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

Gorakhnath Pandurang Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Samta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Kharwandi through Secretary Vs Amrut Devidas Patange and Others

Samta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Kharwandi through Secretary Vs Pandhrinath Bhagwat Sherkar and Others

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