Allowed

Waman Khobraji Kharate v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC6 May 2026WP/753/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three employees challenged recovery of excess payments made by the University and sought refund with interest. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on impermissible recoveries, the Court held the case covered by those decisions, found Jagdev Singh inapplicable, allowed the petitions and quashed the recovery orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed in terms of prayer clauses B, C and D: refund of recovered amounts with interest and quashing of recovery orders and communication dated 29/30.11.2023; Rule made absolute.

Waman Khobraji Kharate vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

wp751-24.doc

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:21388-DB

¶3

drp

¶4

{1}

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.751 OF 2024

¶7

Baliram Sakharamji Kadam PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Sunil V. Kurundkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondent - State Mr. Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 4 ....… WITH WRIT PETITION NO.752 OF 2024 Nivrati Ramrao Gavali PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Sunil V. Kurundkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent - State Mr. Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 4 ....… WITH WRIT PETITION NO.753 OF 2024 Waman Khobraji Kharate PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Sunil V. Kurundkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. R. Wakale, AGP for Respondent - State Mr. Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 4

¶9

{2}

¶10

wp751-24.doc

¶11

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

¶12

DATE : 6th MAY, 2026

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

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

¶15

By these Petitions, the Petitioners have putforth following

¶16

prayers:

¶17

Writ Petition No. 751 of 2024

¶18

“B. By writ of Mandamus or any other writ or directions in like nature the Respondents be directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,55,359/- (Rupees one Lac Fifty Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Nine only) with interest within stipulated time frame that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

¶19

C. By writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction in like nature, the order dated 02.06.2020 recovering an amount of Rs.20,000/- and order dated 09.07.2020 to the extent of recovery of amount of Rs.1,35,359/- may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶20

D. By Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction in like nature, the communication dated 29/30.11.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶21

Writ Petition No. 752 of 2024

¶22

“B. By writ of Mandamus or any other writ or directions in like nature the Respondents be directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,39,398/- (Rupees one Lac Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Eight only) with interest within stipulated time frame that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

¶23

C. By writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or

¶24

{3}

¶25

wp751-24.doc

¶26

direction in like nature, the order dated 19.09.2014 recovering an amount of Rs.6,136/- and order dated 19.09.2015 to recovering of amount of Rs.1,33,262/- may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶27

D. By Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction in like nature, the communication dated 29/30.11.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶28

Writ Petition No. 753 of 2024

¶29

“B. By writ of Mandamus or any other writ or directions in like nature the Respondents be directed to refund an amount of Rs.67,630/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty only) with interest within stipulated time frame that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

¶30

C. By writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction in like nature, the order dated 17.07.2013 recovering an amount of Rs.67,630/- may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶31

D. By Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction in like nature, the communication dated 29/30.11.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶32

Indisputably, the questions raised in these Petitions are squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 08.01.2020 in Writ Petition No. 4346 of 2017 ( Divakar Kishanrao Kakde V/s The State of Maharashtra and Others ), and judgments of the Supreme Court in “ State of Punjab and Others V/s Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and “Jogeshwar Sahoo and Others V/s The District Judge, Cuttack and Others” in SLP No. 5918 of 2024.

¶33

{4}

¶34

wp751-24.doc

¶35

Learned Advocate for the University has strongly opposed the Petition by relying on the judgment in the case of “High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others V/s Jagdev Singh” 2016 (14) SCC 267 .

¶36

4. It is observed in “Jogeshwar Sahoo” (supra) as follows:

¶37

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law.

¶38

(I) Recovery from the employees belonging to class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D Service)”

¶39

Upon hearing both the sides and on going through the

¶40

record, we are of the view that the case of the Petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions relied on by the Petitioners and the decision in Jagdev Singh (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Writ Petitions are, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses “B”, “C” and “D”. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶41

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

¶42

drp/wp751-24.doc

Waman Khobraji Kharate v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waman Khobraji Kharate v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shantilal Babanrao Rithe vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

Pornima Jadhav Patil vs the Union of India through Secretary and Others

Rajendra Sopan Anbhule and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Janardhan Bajirao Darade vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh HUF through Its Karta Dhananjay Alias Annasaheb Vasantrao Deshmukh vs the Union of India through the Secretary and Others

Deelip Pralhad Hiwale vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others