Purshottam Laxaman Naiknaware v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Water Supply And Sanition Dept. And ORS

LSP 1 69 wp 5452.25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 5452 of 2025 Purshottam Laxaman Naiknaware ...

Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and others ...

Respondents.

Mr. Viraj Shelatkar a/w. Ganesh K. Gole for the Petitioner. Mr N.C.Walimbe, ddl. G.P. a/w. Smt. V.R. Raje, AGP for the Respondents-State.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 22nd January 2026.

ORAL ORDER: (PER M.S.KARNIK, J) .

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date:

2026.01.29 16:25:27 +0530 LATA SUNIL PANJWANI 2nd December 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal refusing to grant interest on the amount of Rs.4,56,065/- which the Respondents were directed to refund to the Petitioner. The facts of the present petition reveal that pursuant to the Petitioner's transfer from Pune to Kolhapur, though the Petitioner

LSP 2 69 wp 5452.25.doc was expected to vacate the quarters on his transfer from Pune, the Petitioner continued to occupy the premises from 26th May 2007 to 31st May 2011. The Respondents, therefore, recovered the amount of Rs.4,56,065/- from the retiral dues of the Petitioner being the rent at the market value for such overstay.

3.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest on the refund that was made. It is submitted that in the first instance the recovery of the amount of Rs.4,56,065/- was illegal and that too the same was made from the retiral dues of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that once the Tribunal has held that Respondents were not justified in effecting such recovery, then the consequence of payment of interest on the amount which has been ordered to be refunded must follow. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Dua v/s. State of Haryana and another1.

Reliance is placed on Para-14 the decision which reads thus: "In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules.

LSP 3 69 wp 5452.25.doc that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."

4.

Learned AGP opposed the petition. He argued in support of the impugned order.

5.

Heard learned counsel. We have perused the pleadings, materials on record and the impugned order. No doubt in Para-16, the Tribunal observed thus:

"From perusal of the record, it seems that the Respondent authorities never directed Applicant to vacate quarter nor issued any show cause notice to pay penal rent. Nor it has initiated any proceedings against the Applicant for getting the quarter vacated. The fact, therefore, remains that the Applicant was occupying the quarter legally and though he was expected to vacate it after transfer from Pune to Kolhapur, that itself does not mean that he was occupying the quarter unauthorizedly or illegally."

LSP 4 69 wp 5452.25.doc 6.

After referring to the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules, the Tribunal in Para-19 observed that: "From the discussion in foregoing Paras, it will be clear that without giving any show cause notice to the Applicant, the Respondents have recovered the amount of so called penal rent from the Applicant. The amount is recovered as per the G.R. dated 29.07.2011 which was not at all applicable in case of the Applicant. The said G.R. is applicable from 1.08.2011 whereas the Applicant has already retired on superannuation on 31st May 2011, and therefore, the order of recovery is absolutely illegal and arbitrary."

7.

Thus, the Tribunal observed that without issuing any showcause notice to the Petitioner, the Respondents have recovered the amount of so called penal rent from him. It was also observed that the amount was recovered as per the G.R. dated 29th July 2011, which was not at all applicable in the case of the Petitioner. In these circumstances, it was held that recovery is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

8.

Having held thus, the Tribunal while refusing to award any interest on the said recovery that was ordered, in Para-20 observed thus:

"The learned P.O. submits that the Applicant was knowing

LSP 5 69 wp 5452.25.doc the fact that the quarter was to be vacated within three months. The Applicant himself was dealing with the subject and he himself has issued such notice of recovery, and therefore, the Applicant cannot take defense ignorance. There is no doubt that, in the allotment order, it has been specifically stated that the Applicant will have to vacate the Government quarter on his transfer and in case, he does not vacate it on transfer, penal rent will be charged as per market rate. It was also given an understanding that, in case, he does not vacate the quarter on transfer within one month, he will be liable for departmental action as well as penal interest. In Clause No.

6 of the allotment letter (paper book Page 25-A), it is clearly mentioned that the Applicant will have to vacate the quarter within one month on transfer. Though it can be presumed that the Applicant was knowing cause and consequences of not vacating the Government quarter after his transfer, it is also a fact that the Respondent authorities have not taken any action for getting the quarter vacated. Considering these facts, at the most, it can be said that the Applicant may not be entitled to claim interest on the amount recovered from him, but that will not justify the recovery."

9.

In our opinion, when the order of recovery has been held by the Tribunal to be illegal and arbitrary, at the first blush, we were inclined to hold that the Tribunal committed a patent error in refusing to award interest on the amount that is recovered. However,

LSP 6 69 wp 5452.25.doc having perused the findings of Tribunal in Para-20 reproduced above, we do not find that this case calls for interference with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not find the view taken by the Tribunal in refusing to award interest is a perverse view to warrant interference.

10.

The decision in S.K. Dua (supra) relied upon by the Petitioner is distinguishable on facts. In Para-14 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that the observations are prima facie and in the ultimate analysis it was held that since the High Court did not enter into the merits of the matter and dismissed the petition in limine by a cryptic order, the said order passed by the High Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Moreover, in Para-20 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:

"Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, one way or other. As and when the writ petition will be placed before the High Court, it will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in the order."

11.

The Petition deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.

(S.M.MODAK,J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)