Murlidhar Chandrakant Mahale And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra Thro. Its Sec. Rural Development Dept And ORS

Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date:

2024.12.13 10:13:16 +0530 GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.18031 OF 2024 Murlidhar Chandrakant Mahale and Ors.

....Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

....Respondents ---- Mr. Rahul A. Shinde for the Petitioners.

Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Ashwin R. Kapadnis for Respondent Nos.3 to 5. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 9th DECEMBER, 2024/ 11th DECEMBER, 2024 ORAL FINAL ORDER (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :- 1.

This matter was actually disposed off on 9th December, 2024, with an identical order at page 191 of the Petition Paper Book. However, as the learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad, Nashik had not caused an appearance, this matter was listed today, i.e., 11th December, 2024. The learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of Zilla Parishad, Nashik.

2.

All the Petitioners are identically placed. The learned Advocate representing the Respondent Zilla Parishad, Nashik agrees.

3.

The Petitioners are employees who were working with the Respondent Zilla Parishad and have 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, calculated 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, are as under : Sr .

No.

Name of petitioner Date of retirement Date of impugned Amount Recovered recovery order Murlidhar Chandrakant Mahale 31/03/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 14/08/2021 1,37,266/- Anusaya Dilip Patil 31/05/2022 (Prim. Teacher) 24/05/2022 2,38,485/- Suresh Jayram Kamdi 30/06/2022 (Head Master) 04/10/2022 2,39,022/-

Purushottam Shankar Tarvare 30/11/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 22/10/2021 1,79,975/- Dayaram Rama Raut 31/07/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 27/09/2021 1,56,841/- Motiram Dhakalu Darode 30/09/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 18/10/2021 1,45,657/- Manohar Devram Bhoye 30/06/2022 (Prim. Teacher) 02/06/2022 2,10,617/- Mahadu Vitthal Mahale 30/06/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 09/08/2021 1,51,350/- Vinayak Parashram Pawar 30/04/2022 (Prim. Teacher) 31/10/2022 2,50,671/- Tulshidas Rajaram Waghere 28/02/2022 (Prim. Teacher) 02/06/2022 2,13,054/- Ramchandra Dharma Shevare 31/08/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 27/09/2021 2,51,041/- Pundlik Gangaram Khambait 31/10/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 08/02/2022 1,76,797/- Krushna Kashiram Sapate 31/05/2020 (Prim. Teacher) 10/08/2022 57,001/- Vaman Mahadu Bhusare 31/05/2021 (Head Master) 07/08/2021 1,54,177/- Namdev Tulshiram Hadas 29/02/2020 (Prim.

Teacher) 06/07/2020 1,56,886/- Bhagvan Shivram Bamhane 30/06/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 29/09/2021 1,39,865/- Bhaurav Tukaram Bhoye 30/06/2019 (Prim. Teacher) 05/12/2019 58,998/- Manohar Keru Chaudhari 31/05/2021 (Prim. Teacher) 04/10/2021 1,48,119/- Ramdas Govind Bhoye 31/12/2021 (Prim.

Chaudhari (Head Master) Rama Kalu Tungar 31/05/2021 (Head Master) 14/08/2021 1,55,969/- Bhupedra Dattatray Satpute (Died) Through his Legal Heir / Widow Smt. Lata Bhupendra Satpute (Died On) 09/11/2018 18/11/2021 5,68,836/- (Prim. Teacher) 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 wrongful revision of their pay scales or orchestrating 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 undertaking were extracted from some of them. 6.

The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad as well as the learned AGP, 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 on 1st September, 2021, in Writ Petition 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 retiral benefits would not be released until such undertaking is executed. Such an undertaking will not have the

same sanctity 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.

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.

The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The amounts due and payable to the Petitioners, as well as to the widows and other legal heirs, if that is the case, after the superannuation of the said employees/death of the employees, would be paid to these Petitioners or their widows or other legal heirs, if that is the case, within a period of 90 days.

11.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits, on instructions, that the Petitioners would not claim any interest on the amount which has already been recovered from them, to the extent of it's repayment. In view thereof, if the amounts are not paid within 90 days, interest at the rate of Rs.5% p.a. from the date of this order, will be paid.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)