Shaheen Tabassum Late Syed Noorul Iqbal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Ansari AGP for Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. V.K. Kotecha Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar

¶12

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND SMT. VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 15.10.2025

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : NITIN B. SURWANSHI, J.)

¶15

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶16

2 990wp3728.17 Judgment (new)

¶17

the parties, heard finally at the admission stage.

¶18

This petition challenges the letter No. 2016/PS/Family Pension/Kavi/819, dated 30.05.2016, issued by Block Development Officer Class-I, Panchayat Samiti Bhokardan, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna and seeks direction to respondent No. 2 to release the withheld family pension of the petitioner from May-2015 to May-2016. The husband of the petitioner was serving as Extension Officer in Zilla Parishad Jalna. He expired on 13.09.2011 due to heart attack. By order dated 05.05.2012 family pension of Rs. 12,300/- p.m. was sanctioned to the petitioner. The petitioner was getting regular family pension till April, 2015, however, the family pension of the petitioner was withheld from May- 2015 till May-2016. By letter dated 30.05.2016, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 4,48,661/- is liable to be recovered from the petitioner towards the Dearness Allowance paid to her, to which she was not entitled to.

¶19

By representation dated 08.11.2016, the petitioner informed respondent No. 2 that she has not suppressed anything from the respondents and for no fault on her part the Dearness Allowance was paid to the petitioner and therefore, the same is not liable to be recovered. The family pension was released to the petitioner from May2016 onwards.

¶20

3 990wp3728.17 Judgment (new)

¶21

Being aggrieved by the non payment of the family pension for

¶22

a period between May-2015 till May-2016, the petitioner has filed present petition seeking direction to the respondents to pay her withheld family pension and further prayed for setting aside the recovery of Rs. 4,48,661/-. In support of the petition, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on a decision in State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafq i Masih (White Washer) etc in CA No.11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012) .

¶23

Learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the ratio in State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafq Masih (White Washer) i (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner was in service while the family pension was sanctioned to her. The Dearness Allowance was not liable to be paid to her and the same was inadvertently paid to her, therefore, the recovery of the same is rightly sought from the petitioner.

¶24

Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and respondents respectively and perused the record.

¶25

Since the petitioner is receiving family pension, she was not entitled for Dearness Allowance, which was inadvertently paid to her. The respondents are, therefore, justified in seeking recovery of the amount of Dearness Allowance paid to the petitioner. The ratio in the

¶26

4 990wp3728.17 Judgment (new)

¶27

case of State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafq Masih (White Washer) i (supra) is applicable to the cases of Class-III and Class-IV employees. Since the petitioner is not a Class-III or Class-IV employee of the Zilla Parishad, therefore, the ratio of State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafq Masih (White i Washer) (supra) is of no help to the case of the petitioner.

¶28

In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition and we are of the view that respondents are justified in seeking recovery of Rs. 4,48,661/- from the petitioner as the said amount was mistakenly paid to the petitioner, to which she was not entitled to. The withheld family pension for a period in between May-2015 to May-2016 is approximately Rs. 1,35,000/-. Deducting this amount, the respondents are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 3,13,661/- from the petitioner. The same may be recovered by deducting in equal installments from the family pension of the petitioner.

¶29

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶30

The rule is discharged.

¶31

( SMT. VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

mahajansb/

Shaheen Tabassum Late Syed Noorul Iqbal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheen Tabassum Late Syed Noorul Iqbal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalidas Vithoba Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjeev Dadarao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khuraji Somaji Bhagat Vs Shri Ranjit Singh Deol

Suresh Jugalkishor Kabra and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pushpabai W/O Adhar Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhausaheb Bajrang Parkhe Vs Virendra Singh and Others