Saiyad Haidar Ali Zahoor Ali v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 980 WRIT PETITION NO.8682 OF 2023 DEVYANI SURESH CHAUDHARI WRIT PETITION NO. 8683 OF 2023 SUNANDA KESHAV JANGALE Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. N.E. Deshmukh WRIT PETITION NO. 8684 OF 2023 AYYUBKHA SUBHANKHA TADAVI Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. N.E. Deshmukh WRIT PETITION NO. 8687 OF 2023 ABDUL GANI JAMASHER TADAVI Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. N.E. Deshmukh WRIT PETITION NO. 8688 OF 2023 MALATI NARENDRA BAVISKAR 1/6

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. N.E. Deshmukh WRIT PETITION NO. 8690 OF 2023 BHARTI KISHOR SURYAWANSHI Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. N.E. Deshmukh WRIT PETITION NO. 8691 OF 2023 SUNITA SUKADEV NEMADE WRIT PETITION NO. 8692 OF 2023 LATA BHAGWAT CHAUDHARI Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. N.E. Deshmukh WRIT PETITION NO. 8693 OF 2023 ASHOK GANU BHALERAO 2/6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8694 OF 2023 BALKRUSHNA DHONDU MAHALE WRIT PETITION NO. 8695 OF 2023 SUNANDA DAGADU NEHETE WRIT PETITION NO. 8704 OF 2023 MANJUSHA SUNIL PATIL A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.K. Tambe WRIT PETITION NO. 9555 OF 2023 SAIYAD HAIDAR ALI ZAHOOR ALI A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.K. Tambe WRIT PETITION NO. 10182 OF 2023 BHAGWAN SHAMRAO PATIL 3/6

A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.S. Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 10183 OF 2023 VIJAYA GOVIND CHAUDHARI A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.S. Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 10184 OF 2023 SURESH VASANT TAYADE A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.S. Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 10185 OF 2023 VIDYARANI ULHASRAO CHAUDHARI A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.S. Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 10186 OF 2023 NANDA RAMESH RANE A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.S. Shinde 4/6

WRIT PETITION NO. 10187 OF 2023 PUSHPA SHIRISH PATIL A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.S. Shinde

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 18.08.2023 PER COURT :

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners in all the petitions, learned A.G.P. and the learned advocate Mr. S.R. Dheple and learned advocate Mr. N.E. Deshmukh for the respondents-Zilla Parishads. 2.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the recoveries being sought to be made by virtue of the orders after their retirement for recovery of the moneys as indicated in the chart extended to us across the Bar on the ground of their failure to complete MS-CIT within the stipulated period and/ or wrong pay fixation.

3.

This Court has granted reliefs to similarly situated persons based on the decision in the matter of The State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported (2015 ) 4 SCC 334. It is not the case of the respondents that any undertaking was sought as is contemplated in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh; 2016 AIR (SCW) 5/6

3523. No such recoveries could have been resorted to post retirement when it is not the petitioners' fault.

4.

The Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. If based on the impugned orders some pensionary benefits are withheld those shall be released forthwith. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/- 6/6