Dismissed

Sakharam Vithoba Kasid and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC10 Aug 2021WP/5810/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a Government Resolution withdrawing benefits for 'excellent work' intends to have prospective effect only. Consequently, benefits awarded in 2012 cannot be withdrawn retrospectively, and any recovery made must be refunded.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of. No recovery of benefits awarded in 2012 shall be made; any recovered amount shall be refunded.

Sakharam Vithoba Kasid and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 1008-wp 5810-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5810 OF 2021

¶4

Sakharam Vithoba Kasid
and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. V. N. Patil-Jadhav, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 10th AUGUST, 2021.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

2. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits

¶15

that the petition suffers from delay and laches. On this ground, the
same be rejected.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is confronted with the
order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8171 of 2019 dated 07.10.2019
and on perusal of the same, the learned counsel accepts that the
petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in Writ Petition No.
8171 of 2019.

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

2 1008-wp 5810-2021.odt

¶19

4. In the light of that, we follow the same course.

¶20

5.It is submitted that, petitioners are awarded certificate of
excellent work and advance increments in the year 2012. They were
given benefit of advance increments and same was also paid. However,
now for some of the petitioners recovery is claimed and for some of the
petitioners benefit is not extended. If the petitioners are already
granted certificate of excellent work in the year 2012, then the same
cannot be withdrawn retrospectively on the basis of subsequent
Government Resolution.

¶21

6. The same view was taken by us in Writ Petition No. 1954 of 2018 with other connected writ petitions under order dated 25.01.2019.

¶22

7.The Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 will have
prospective effect and not retrospective and in that case benefit that
was accorded to petitioners of excellent work in the year 2012 shall not
be withdrawn and if any recovery is made pursuant to the same, same
shall be refunded to the petitioners.

¶23

8. In the light of the above, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

( R. N. LADDHA ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

P.S.B.

¶26

2 of 2

Sakharam Vithoba Kasid and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakharam Vithoba Kasid and Others v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Balaji Vishwanath Kante Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Mahesh Krushnarao Ghugari Vs the Union of India and Others

Satish Balkrishna Joshi Vs Union of India and Others

Nalini Digambar Gosavi Thr Legal Guardian Prakash Digambar Gosavi Vs the Union of India Thr the Secretary and Others

Sujata Vijay Unawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Otherss

Madhukar Ashok Shelke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another