Pravin Gulabrao Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

21,47,55-WP-11729-23++.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 21 WRIT PETITION NO.11729 OF 2023 DEVIDAS GANPATRAO RAJEWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND 47 WRIT PETITION NO.11815 OF 2023 PRAVIN GULABRAO PAWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND 55 WRIT PETITION NO.11837 OF 2023 RAJENDRASING WAMANSING PATIL

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ....

Mr. S. K. Mathpati, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, Mr. V. M. Kagne and Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, AGPs for Respondent - State Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in WP/ 11729/2023 Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in WP/11815/2023 and 11837/2023 ....

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 25.09.2023

(( 2 )) PER COURT :- 1.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has placed a ready reference chart indicating the names of the Petitioners, Writ Petition numbers and other details. The same is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification.

2.

All these Petitioners are identically placed. All of them are the original employees, who have superannuated from employment. All have been subjected to recovery of amounts, purportedly for the reason that the amounts that were paid to them towards their revised pay-scales almost a decade ago, in view of acquiring certificates of MS-CIT or on account of the pay fixation, were wrongly paid.

3.

It is undisputed that these Petitioners were not personally involved in the revision of their pay scales. They were also not involved in manipulating such revision. There is no allegation of fraud or deceit against them. No undertaking was obtained from these Petitioners on the date when the pay scales were revised and the payment of revised pay scale commenced. In some cases, at the stroke of retirement, a condition was imposed that they should

(( 3 )) execute an undertaking and it is in these circumstances that an undertaking has been extracted from some of the employees. 4.

The learned Advocates representing the Zilla Parishad as well as the learned A.G.Ps., submit that, once an undertaking is executed, the case of the Petitioners would be covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, 2016 AIR (SCW) 3523. Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by this Court on 1.9.2021, in Writ Petition No. 13262 of 2018 filed by Ananda Vikram Baviskar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. 5.

We have referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh (supra). The record reveals that no undertaking was taken from these Petitioners when the pay scales were revised. An undertaking from some of them was taken at the stroke of their retirement. An undertaking has to be taken from the candidate when the revised pay scale is made applicable to him and the payment of such pay scale commences. At the stroke of superannuation of the said employee, asking him to tender an undertaking, practically

(( 4 )) amounts to an afterthought on the part of the employer and a mode of compelling the candidate to execute an undertaking since they are apprehensive that their retiral benefits would not be released until such undertaking is executed. Such an undertaking will not have the same sanctity as that of an undertaking executed when the payment of revised pay scale had commenced. We, therefore, respectfully conclude that the view taken in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the case of these Petitioners, more so since the recovery is initiated after their superannuation.

6.

Taking into account that these Petitioners were not involved in any mischief, fraud or deceit in orchestrating their wrongful pay revision, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others, 2009 (3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and other vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334 = AIR 2015 SC 696, would apply to these cases.

7.

As such, all these Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The amounts due and payable to

(( 5 )) the Petitioners after the superannuation of the said candidates, would be paid to these Petitioners within a period of 90 days alongwith admissible interest as per Rules.

8.

Needless to state, if any candidate has tendered an undertaking at the time of the pay-fixation, making it obligatory on himself to refund the excess amount paid, this order would not be applicable to such a candidate, in the light of the law laid down in Jagdev Singh (supra), which would govern such cases. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] SMS