← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/11727/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Alimmoddin Mohiyyoddin Kazi v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2018-02-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K. K. Sonawane3 pages

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11262 OF 2016 Shankar s/o Kishanrao Eklarkar Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.G.N.Kulkarni (Mardikar), advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.N.Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.

Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, advocate for Respondent No.2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11727 OF 2016 Shankar s/o Kishanrao Eklarkar Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.G.N.Kulkarni (Mardikar), advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.N.Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.

Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11263 OF 2016 Dilip Madhukar Gvondwar Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.G.N.Kulkarni (Mardikar), advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.N.Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.

Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, advocate for Respondents No.2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11292 OF 2016 Sachin s/o Ganesh Mohare Petitioner

{2}

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.G.N.Kulkarni (Mardikar), advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.K.Ingole, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND K.K.SONAWANE, JJ.

DATE : 28th February, 2018.

P.C. :

The petitioners have already tendered a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, on 05.05.2015 requesting the Chief Executive Officer not to deduct the amount paid in excess of entitlement of the petitioners out of the amount payable to them towards pensionary benefits.

According to the petitioners, since they are Group "C employees and that they have not persuaded the respondents by making misrepresentation to pay excess amount while in employment, said amount paid in excess while petitioners were in employment, is not liable to be deducted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others, (2015) 4 SCC 334.

The Chief Executive Officer shall consider the contentions of the petitioners in the light of the judgment, referred to above, and take appropriate decision within a period of six

{3} weeks from today. If the amount has already been deducted, the Chief Executive Officer may also consider the request of the petitioners for refund of the said amount.

With the aforesaid directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.

K.K.SONAWANE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE adb/