Bachina Nageshwara Rao Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

Bachina Nageshwara Rao Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery of Rs.4,55,368/- from the Petitioner (amounts deposited by the Government of Andhra Pradesh towards his leave salary and pension) was without lawful authority, entitling him to refund with interest @ 12% per annum. +6 more

Court's answer

The Petitioner's dues (house building advance, pay and allowance, government quarter recovery and recovery of excess payment, totalling Rs.3,45,865/-) were recoverable; the recovery of the amount was therefore rightly made and not illegal, and the refund contention fails.

Ratio / Principle

Having retired on 31st August 2005, before 6th Pay Commission benefits were conferred with effect from 1st January 2006, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim those benefits, and his basic salary was correctly considered while fixing his pension.

Key takeaways

An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, which is the maximum, was sanctioned and paid to the Petitioner.ratio¶13
While calculating pension, per GR dated 15th November 1999, the Petitioner's highest pay of Rs.24,500/- was taken into consideration; the Accountant General, by communication dated 22nd March 2010, informed that the Petitioner is entitled to pension of RS.13,086/- per month.ratio¶13
As per Government Resolution dated 18th March 2000, 25% NPA was made applicable to the Petitioner, subject to the condition that total basic pay plus NPA should not exceed Rs.29,500/-.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (DB; Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.), dismisses an Article 226 petition (WP 3244/2017) by Dr. Bachina Nageshwara Rao, a Professor of Radiotherapy who superannuated on 31.8.2005 while continuing on deputation (until 4.4.2007) as Director, M.N.J. Institute of Oncology, Hyderabad, pursuant to post facto sanction under GR dated 30.8.2008 against which Rs.4,55,368/- (leave salary/pension deposits of the Government of Andhra Pradesh) was recovered. HELD: (i) dues totalling Rs.3,45,865/- (house building advance Rs.1,09,124/-; pay and allowance Rs.32,557/-; government quarter recovery Rs.1,50,019/-; excess payment Rs.54,165/-) were recoverable and the recovery was not illegal; (ii) retirement on 31.8.2005 preceding the 6th Pay Commission cut-off (1.1.2006) disentitles the Petitioner to those benefits and to revision of basic pay from Rs.21,900/- to Rs.22,400/-; (iii) pension was fixed on the highest pay of Rs.24,500/- per GR dated 15.11.1999 at Rs.13,086/- p.m. (AG communication dated 22.3.2010), and maximum Death Cum Retirement Gratuity of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid; (iv) 25% NPA was applicable per GR dated 18.3.2000 subject to the Rs.29,500/- cap on basic pay plus NPA; (v) 50% Dearness Pay of Rs.10,450/- per GR dated 20.7.2004 was sanctioned; (vi) 279 days' leave encashment was granted, all verified by the Accountant General, Nagpur. Precedents relied on by the Petitioner were distinguished as rendered in different facts. Petition dismissed; rule discharged; no order as to costs.

2025:BHC-AUG:35652-DB

drp

{1}

wp3244-17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.3244 OF 2017

Dr. Bachina Nageshwara Rao PETITIONER Age – 69 years, Occ- Pensioner, R/o 404, S. S. Heights, Gokul Nagar, Tarnaka, Secundarabad – 500 017 Telangana State

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department Mantralaya, Mumbai -32

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

The Dean Government Medical College and Hospital Aurangabad

The Accountant General, Maharashtra – II, Nagpur

Mr. Pallav Sinha h/f Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent - State

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. J.]

RESERVE DON : 11th DECEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17th DECEMBER, 2025

{2}

wp3244-17.doc

JUDGMENT (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.):

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:

“B. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,55,368/- forcefully recovered by the State from the petitioner without any lawful authority aongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of the payment thereof.

C. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be directed to pay Gratuity of Rs.3.5 lacs, which is the revised ceiling limit, to the petitioner alongwith interest thereon @ 12% from the date on which it became payable till the date of its actual payment.

D. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be directed to pay the amount of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) to the petitioner as per the MCS Rules, along with interest thereon @ 12% from the date on which it became payable till the date of its actual payment.

E. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be directed to grant the benefit of Earned Leave Encashment to the petitioner as per the GR dated 15.1.2001.

F. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be directed to pay Dearness Allowance to the petitioner as per the GR dated 20.7.2004 along with interest on the difference amount from the date on which it became payable till the date of its actual payment.

{3}

wp3244-17.doc

G. By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents be directed to revise the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.21,900/- to Rs.22,400/- and calculate the pensionable pay on the basis thereof as per G. R. dated 27.1.2000.

J. By issuing writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, it be declared that the petitioner is entitled to claim, receive and recovery full pension i.e. 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to his pre-revised pay scale without pro-rata deduction as per Office Memorandum dated 6.4.2016 and 13.6.2016 filed at Exh-X and Y and further respondents be directed to revise the pensionable pay of the petitioner by applying the above rule.”

It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner is MD in Radiation Oncology and was appointed as Professor with Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad on 7^th December, 1981. On the request made by the then State of Andhra Pradesh, the Petitioner was sent on deputation, for being appointed as Director of M.N.J. Institute of Oncology and Regional Cancer Center, Hyderabad, as per Government Resolution dated 21^st June, 2001. Petitioner’s Deputation period was extended by the State Government twice, vide Government Resolution dated 9^th March 2004 till 24^th June 2005 and vide Government Resolution dated 5^th October, 2004 till 24^th June 2005. In view of the extensions granted by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Petitioner worked there till 4^th April 2007 and

{4}

wp3244-17.doc

thereafter he claims to have relinquished the said post.

In the interregnum, the Petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from his parent department i.e. Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, as Professor of Radiotherapy on 31^st August 2005. The Petitioner claims to have rendered total 23 years, 8 months and 24 days’ service from 7^th December 1981 to 31^st August 2005. By Government Resolution dated 30^th August, 2008, the State of Maharashtra granted post facto sanction extending the period of deputation of the Petitioner from 25^th June, 2005 to 31^st August, 2005. The Petitioner claims that while issuing the said GR, the Respondents have wrongly recovered an amount of Rs.4,55,368/- which was deposited by the Government of Andhra Pradesh towards his leave salary and pension.

The Respondents have opposed the Writ Petition, by filing a detailed reply. They have claimed that though extension was granted to the Petitioner up to 24^th June 2005, he did not resume his duty in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, hence post facto sanction was required to be given to the Petitioner from 25^th June 2005 to 31^st August 2005, subject to payment of dues against the Petitioner. Calculations of the dues of the Petitioner are also given in the affidavit in reply.

{5}

wp3244-17.doc

The Respondents have submitted that all the benefits claimed by the Petitioner are already extended to him and entire dues of the Petitioner are paid.

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned AGP for the Respondents,at length. Perused the memo of Writ Petition and the documents annexed thereto.

In support of his case, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has relied on following judgments :

I. “Rajendra Prasad Upadhyaya V/s State of U.P. through Prin. Secretary Irrigation” 2012 SCC OnLine All 621.

II. “K. C. Bajaj and Others V/s Union of India and Others” (2014) 3 SCC 777

III. Writ Petition No. 5042 of 2016 dated 2^nd February, 2024 (Association of College and Univeristy Superannuated Teachers V/s Union of India and Others)

IV. Writ Petition No. 8987 of 2014 dated 8^th May, 2015 (Dr. Shafat Hussain Shafaquat Hussain Talib V/s The State of Maharashtra)

Learned AGP, on the other hand, has strenuously opposed

the petition by relying on the affidavit in reply and documents annexed thereto, by submitting that all the retiral benefits are

{6}

wp3244-17.doc

already paid to the Petitioner in accordance with the rules and the Petition is misconceived and hence is liable to be dismissed with costs.

It is evident from the documents placed on record by the Respondents that, though the period of Petitioner’s deputation was up to 24^th June 2005 and he was supposed to resume in service of the State of Maharashtra from 25^th June 2005, however, he did not resume Maharashtra Government service and opted to remain on deputation at Hyderabad, till he attained the age of superannuation. The Maharashtra Government was, therefore, required to give post facto sanction for the period 25^th June 2005 to 31^st August, 2005, by order dated 30^th August 2008.

In the reply affidavit, it is stated that, following dues were recoverable from the Petitioner:

a. House Building Advance : Rs.1,09,124/b. Pay and Allowance : Rs. 32,557/c. Government Quarter Recovery : Rs.1,50,019/d. Recovery of excess payment : Rs. 54,165/___________ TOTAL : Rs. 3,45,865/-

Since the Petitioner was liable to pay the above dues, the said amount is rightly recovered from the Petitioner. Hence, we find no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the said

{7}

wp3244-17.doc

amount is illegally recovered from him.

Admittedly, 6^th Pay Commission benefits were conferred on the Government servants with effect from 1^st January, 2006. The Petitioner stood retired on 31^st August, 2005 and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim benefits of 6^th Pay Commission. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that, his basic salary was wrongly considered while fixing the pension.

The record further reveals that, while calculating his pension, as per GR dated 15^th November, 1999, since the Petitioner’s highest pay was Rs.24,500/-, the same was taken into consideration while granting pension to the Petitioner. Accountant General, by communication dated 22^nd March, 2010, informed that as per the GR dated 15^th November, 1999, the Petitioner is entitled to get pension of RS.13,086/- per month. An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, which is the maximum, was sanctioned and paid to the Petitioner.

As per Government Resolution dated 18^th March, 2000, 25% NPA was made applicable to the Petitioner, subject to the condition that total basic pay plus NPA should not exceed Rs.29,500/-.

{8}

wp3244-17.doc

It appears from the record that at the time of retirement, the Petitioner’s basic pay was Rs.20,900/-, therefore, 50% Dearness Pay (Rs.10,450/-) payable to the Petitioner in terms of GR dated 20^th July, 2004 was sanctioned.

The record further reveals that, the Petitioner was granted total 279 days’ leave encashment.

Thus, it is clear that, the Petitioner is paid all his dues. The retiral benefits granted to the Petitioner are verified and sanctioned by the Accountant General, Nagpur. Thus, the Petitioner has received all the retiral benefits payable to him, as per the Rules and Government policy.

The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner are rendered in different facts and are of no help to the Petitioner’s case.

For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

[ VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE

drp/wp3244-17.doc