Vanita Kashinath Patil v. The Executive Engineer

934wp11879.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 934 WRIT PETITION NO.11879 OF 2019 VANITA KASHINATH PATIL

VERSUS

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Patil Vijay B.

Advocate for Respondent : Mr.Pawar Ajay D.

...

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE : 29th JULY, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties finally. 2.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the deductions made from her pensionary benefits, on the premises that she was granted ACPS benefits incorrectly.

3.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent is a Corporation and the petitioner would not be able to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 4.

Admittedly some deductions have been made, after the petitioner is superannuated on the ground that she was not entitled

934wp11879.19 for ACPS benefits.

5.

The fact and situation is clearly covered by the decision in the matter of State of Panjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others - 2015 (4) SCC 334.

6.

In the light of the above, we allow the Writ Petition. The money recovered, be refunded to the petitioner within eight weeks. ( SANDEEP V. MARNE ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL ) JUDGE JUDGE mahajansb/