Dismissed¶19

The Chief Executive Officer v. Sundarabai Vishwasrao Patil (Sonawane)

Bombay HC2 Dec 2025WP/3539/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition dismissed; Industrial Court Dhule Complaint ULP No. 61 of 2016 allowed and upheld; recovery from employee's pension since 2001 held improper; amount paid while employee was in service; Zilla Parishad recovery action held not proper; no perversity found; no interference; no costs. Petitioner: The Chief Executive Officer (Counsel Nilesh N. Desale). Respondent No. 1: Sundarabai Vishwasrao Patil (Sonawane) (Counsel Vaibhav D. Karande h/f Paresh B. Patil (Borse)). Judge: Siddheshwar S. Thombre. Decision date: 02.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

As the amount was paid to the employee while she was working, there was no reason to initiate recovery proceedings against her. ¶18

The Chief Executive Officer Vs Sundarabai Vishwasrao… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

913wp3539.22

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

913 WRIT PETITION NO. 3539 OF 2022

¶5

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VERSUS

¶6

SUNDARABAI VISHWASRAO PATIL (SONAWANE)

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh N. Desale Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vaibhav D. Karande h/f Mr. Paresh B. Patil (Borse)

¶8

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

¶9

DATE : 02.12.2025

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

1 . Heard Mr. Nilesh N. Desale, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vaibhav D. Karande h/f Mr. Paresh B. Patil (Borse), learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶12

2 . The petitioner assails the order dated 05.03.20121 passed below Exh. O-4, by the Industrial Court, Dhule in Complaint ULP No. 61 of 2016, whereby, the Complaint filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed.

¶13

3 . The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery proceedings were initiated against the respondent employee as there were some legal dues towards her and amount was to be recovered through her pension since 2001. He further submits that learned Industrial Court did not consider the fact that the some amount was payable by respondent employee to the petitioner but the same was not

¶14

¶15

913wp3539.22

¶16

considered by the learned Industrial Court. Therefore, on that ground, he submits that the industrial Court has committed apparent error while passing order.

¶17

4 . I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, it reveals that the recovery ordered by the Zilla Parishad since 2001 was not proper.

¶18

5 . As the amount was paid to the employee while she was working, there was no reason to initiate recovery proceeding against her. As far as other benefits are concerned, those are already granted. I am of the view that action taken by the Zilla Parishad is not proper and the learned Industrial Court has rightly considered the matter.

¶19

6 . Thus, I find that there is no perversity in the order dated 05.03.20121 passed below Exh. O-4, by the Industrial Court, Dhule in Complaint ULP No.61 of 2016, to interfere with the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs.

¶20

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

¶21

mahajansb/

The Chief Executive Officer v. Sundarabai Vishwasrao Patil (Sonawane)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Executive Officer v. Sundarabai Vishwasrao Patil (Sonawane)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yeshwant Bahuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha through Its Secretary Balaji Pandhari Pandhare and Another Vs Sangram Chandar Kolekar and Another

Ganesh Arun Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Minister and Others

Vandana Daulat Bavaskar Vs Shantabai Deorao Bavaskar and Others

Sakharbai Ankush Alias Babasaheb Shendge Vs the Honble State Minister Revenue and Another

Bismilaa Usman Pathan and Others Vs Sayyed Mujib Sayyed Baba and Others

M/S Darshan Constructions through Authorised Partner Jeevan Vinayak Jahagirdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others