Allowed

Shantaram Pundlik Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Jul 2021WP/7580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad quashed orders directing recovery of amounts from three retired Class-III employees based on erroneous pay fixation. Relying on State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, the court held recovery inappropriate under the given parameters and ordered the return of the amounts.

What did the court decide?

Orders directing recovery were quashed and set aside; respondents directed to return the recovered amounts within four months.

Shantaram Pundlik Patil Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 39-wp 7575-2021+.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

39 WRIT PETITION NO. 7575 OF 2021

¶4

Bhagwan Manik Patil .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Borade, AGP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶6

43 WRIT PETITION NO. 7579 OF 2021

¶7

Maroti Tukaram Pawar .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Borade, AGP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶11

44 WRIT PETITION NO. 7580 OF 2021

¶12

Shantaram Pundlik Patil .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶13

Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Borade, AGP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

2 39-wp 7575-2021+.odt

¶16

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

¶17

DATED : 12^th JULY, 2021.

¶18

PER COURT :-

¶19

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

¶20

Mr. Sontakke, 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

2 of 4

¶24

3 39-wp 7575-2021+.odt

¶25

down the following parameters.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

3 of 4

¶33

39-wp 7575-2021+.odt

¶34

return the amount recovered from the petitioners within a period of four months from today.

¶35

Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶36

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

¶37

P.S.B.

¶38

4 of 4

Shantaram Pundlik Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantaram Pundlik Patil v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Deorao Janjal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahesh Inderchandji Kankariya Thr Power of Attorney Holder and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pranjal Prabhakar Jadhav Vs the Union of India and Others

Shivdarshan Gundappa Birajdar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Ramkrishna Bahadure Vs Marathwada Sanskritik Mandals College of Physical Education, Aurangabad and Another

Bhagwan Manik Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others