Shri. Ashok Valmik Badoge And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary , Gen. Adm. Dept. And ORS

Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date:

2025.07.15 19:09:40 +0530 TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8870 OF 2024 1.

Shri Ashok Valmik Badoge 2.

Thakaji Vithoba Naikwade 3.

Sarla Mangoo Nandale 4.

Vidya Namdeo Abhonkar 5.

Malti Hiraman Wagh 6.

Sindhu Trymbak Wagh 7.

Sudhakar Bhilaji Khare 8.

Ananda Arjun Deore 9.

Gangadhar Ambu Desai 10.

Dilip Madhavrao Bachhav 11.

Lalita Bhaulal Bairagi 12.

Vijayn Raghunath Deore 13.

Yashawant Supadu Ahir 14.

Dilip Motiram Pawar 15.

Khandu Bhaorao Savant 16.

Baliram Daulat Deore 17.

Popat Govinda Jadhav 18.

Suryakant Kacharu Garud 19.

Vasant Dongar More 20.

Shantabai Diliprao Deore 21.

Mirabai Nanaji Kapadnis @ Mira Uttam Thakare 22.

Prabhakar Ragho Bachhav 23.

Vimal Sahebrao Pawar 24.

Shantaram Devram Bhangre 25.

Hari Kisan Madke 26.

Bhalchandra Laxman Jadhav 27.

Suresh Karbhari Bhamare 28.

Rajni Lalchanda Chaudhari 29.

Tarabai Madhukar Pawar 30.

Daga Ramchandra Bachhav 31.

Suman Kautik Ahire 32.

Gyandev Jagnnath Garud 33.

Kalu Daga Borse 34.

Manjula Namdeo Bhangre 1/8

35.

Bhagawan Namdeo Khetade ... Petitioners versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

2) Chief Executive Officers, Zilla Parishad, Nashik 3) The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik, Dist. Nashik 4) The Chief Accountants and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nashik, Dist. Nashik ... Respondents ...

Mr.R.M.Haridas with Mr. Somnath Thengal i/b. Ms.Aarti P. Bhide for the Petitioners.

Ms.P.N.Diwan, AGP for Respondent No.1, State. Mr.Ashwin R. Kapadnis for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, Zilla Parishad, Nashik. ...

CORAM

:

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

DATE :

14th July, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) 1.

Office to accept the Vakalatnama of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, Zilla Parishad, Nashik. 2/8

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the Parties. The learned Advocates representing the Respondent Zilla Parishad, Nashik, agrees that the Petitioners are identically placed. 3.

The Petitioners are the original employees who were working with the Respondent Zilla Parishad and superannuated from employment. All of them were subjected to recovery of amounts, purportedly for the reason that excess amounts were paid to them, under wrongful revised pay scales/erroneous revised pay scales, on the basis of acquiring the certificate of MS-CIT etc. These pay scales were revised more than a decade ago. 4.

The grievance of these Petitioners is that recoveries have been initiated against them, from their retiral benefits/pensionary benefits. In some cases, amounts have already been recovered. A chart showing the details of the petitioners, their dates of superannuation, dates of impugned orders and amounts recovered from their retiral benefits/pensionary benefits, is as under:- S.

No Particulars Post Date of Joining Date of Retirement and date of undertaking Amount forfeited Date of Order towards recovery Ashok Valmik Badoge Center Head 21/2/86 31/5/19 71,547 28/5/19 Thakaji Vithoba Naikwade Center Head 13/12/83 31/5/21 1,82,128 21/7/21 Sarla Mangoo Nandale Head 24/12/86 31/5/20 1,19,779 7/3/21 3/8

Master Vidya Namdeo Abhonkar Asst.

Teacher 14/12/83 31/1/18 17,524 7/4/18 Malti Hiraman Wagh Assistant Teacher 17/9/85 30/6/19 52,199 20/1/20 Sindhu Trymbak Wagh Head Master 12/12/83 31/5/19 71,908 5/12/19 Sudhakar Bhilaji Khare Head Master 19/6/87 30/9/19 71,331 26/2/20 Ananda Arjun Deore Assistant Teacher 3/11/81 31/10/17 54,930 4/10/17 Gangadhar Ambu Desai Primary Teacher 23/12/86 30/4/20 90,487 26/9/20 Dilip Madhavrao Bachhav Primary Teacher 18/8/89 31/5/21 94,463 14/8/21 Lalita Bhaulal Bairagi Assistant Teacher 10/11/86 30/11/20 1,12,116 4/12/20 Vijay Raghunath Deore Head Master 14/12/83 30/6/20 97,829 25/6/20 Yashawant Supadu Ahire Head Master 8/1/87 30/4/19 55,756 30/11/19 Dilip Motiram Pawar Head Master 23/12/86 31/8/22 1,91,511 5/12/22 Khandu Bhaorao Savant Head Master 22/11/85 28/2/19 39,716 25/2/19 Baliram Daulat Deore Head Master 15/12/83 31/5/20 95,589 26/11/20 Popat Govinda Jadhav Assistant Teacher 19/6/89 31/5/21 61,838 6/7/21 Suryakant Kacharu Garud Head Master 20/6/86 31/5/22 1,51,383 19/5/22 Vasant Dongar More Head Master 29/12/86 30/6/18 22,052 24/12/20 Shantabai Diliprao Deore Assistant Teacher 1/6/82 31/5/20 96,685 15/1/21 Mirabai Nanaji Kapadnis @ Mira Uttam Thakare Head Master 10/9/84 30/6/20 89,726 1/4/21 Prabhkar Ragho Bachhav Assistant Teacher 10/9/84 31/5/19 43,763 23/1/20 Vimal Sahebrao Pawar Head Master 8/8/84 31/5/20 96,685 20/1/21 Shantaram Devram Bhangre Head Master 16/5/85 31/9/21 1,47,642 19/3/21 Hari Kisan Madke Primary Teacher 17/6/92 31/5/20 87,483 24/9/20 Bhalchandra Laxman Jadhav Head Master 25/6/87 30/6/19 48,497 28/5/20 Suresh Karbhari Bhamare Assistant Teacher 17/6/87 31/8/21 90,277 18/8/21 Rajni Lalchand Chaudhari Assistant Teacher 12/7/93 31/12/21 93,036 26/11/21 Tarabai Madhukar Pawar Assistant Teacher 11/11/89 31/7/20 98,320 29/1/21 Daga Ramchandra Bachhav Primary Teacher 21/6/89 31/12/19 1,45,408 25/09/20 4/8

Suman Kautik Ahire Head Master 5/12/86 31/07/21 1,75,617 07/12/21 Gyandev Jagnnath Garud Primary Teacher 20/6/89 31/5/21 1,18,524 14/8/21 Kalu Daga Borse Kendra Pramukh 14/12/83 30/6/19 66,678 30/6/19 Manjula Namdeo Bhangre Primary Teacher 16/1/93 31/12/20 1,09,932 26/2/21 Bhagawan Namdeo Khetade Head Master 16/9/85 31/05/20 74,503 11/12/20 5.

We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates. It is, however, undisputed that none of these Petitioners had played any fraud or were personally involved in the wrongful revision of their pay scales or orchestrating a wrongful revision by manipulating the record. There is no allegation of fraud or deceit against any of them. No undertaking was acquired from them, as and when the revised pay scale become payable. In some cases, at the stroke of retirement, a condition was imposed that they should execute an undertaking and in these coercive circumstances, that undertakings were extracted from some of them. 6.

The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad as well as the learned A.G.P., 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 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 (Aurangabad Bench) on 1.9.2021, in Writ Petition 5/8

No. 13262 of 2018 filed by Ananda Vikram Baviskar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others.

7.

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). However, the record reveals that no undertaking was taken from these Petitioners when the pay scales were revised. The undertakings from some of them were taken at the stroke of their retirement. 8.

An undertaking has to be taken from the candidate on the day the revised pay scale is made applicable to him and the payment commences. At the stroke of superannuation of the said employee, asking him to tender an undertaking, practically 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 retirement 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 6/8

superannuation.

9.

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 this case.

10.

This Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. After proper scrutiny and verification by the Zilla Parishad, Nashik, to be completed within a period of 45 days from today, the amounts due and payable to the Petitioners, as well as to the widows and the legal heirs, if any, after the superannuation or death of the concerned employees, shall be paid to the Petitioners, their widows, or legal heirs, as the case may be, within a further period of 60 days. 11.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits, on instructions, that the Petitioners pray for interest. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad, Nashik submits that if the amounts are not returned to the concerned Petitioners, if not already returned, within the period granted by this Court, interest may be imposed.

7/8

12.

We, therefore, record that if the amounts recovered are not returned to the concerned Petitioners within the period (45 + 60 days) after completion of the aforesaid procedure, interest @ 5% per annum from the date of this order, will be paid to the Petitioners. 13.

Rule is made partly absolute accordingly.

(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) 8/8