Shrihari Dadarao Gaikwad And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2756 OF 2025 Shrihari Dadarao Gaikwad and Ors. .....Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Umesh Kurund for the Petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka B. Chavan, for the Solapur Z.P.

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2025.03.04 10:33:54 +0530 Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the State.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 27th FEBRUARY, 2025 ORAL FINAL ORDER (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge,J.) 1.

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

2.

The Petitioners are the 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, calculated on the basis of acquiring the certificate of MS-CIT etc.

These pay scales were revised more than a decade ago. 3.

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.

Retired Teachers Name Computer Recovery Retired Date 1.

Shri Shrihari Dadarao Gaikwad 50727.00 31.5.2021 2.

Shri Dashrath Santaram Mali 26169.00 31.5.2019 3.

Shri Vishnu Ambarushi Shinde 171622.00 30.11.2021 4.

Shri Bhaurao Lahu More 52795.00 31.5.2023 5.

Shri Appasaheb Sandipan Pisal 50774.00 31.5.2022 6.

Shri Dattatraya Pandhari Apue 230592.00 31.5.2022 7.

Shri Bhau Bhimrao Masal 47020.00 31.5.2023 8.

Shri Balasaheb Ganpati Shinde 23129.00 31.5.2019 9.

Shri Anand Babu Survase 44368.00 30.9.2023 10.

Shri Prakash Balbhim Vaskar 50478.00 31.5.2021 11.

Damodhar Uddhav Jambale 45573.00 31.5.2021 12.

Shri Dashrath Haridas Aragade 22434.00 31.5.2018 13.

Babruvahan Uttreshwar Kashid 47442.00 31.5.2024 14.

Manohar Janardhan Vaskar 47891.00 31.7.2024 15.

Rajana Narhai Ghodake 61779.00 31.5.2020 16.

Bhaskar Pandhari kakade 49329.00 31.5.2022 17.

Babusha Sopan Thite 45404.00 31.5.2021 18.

Mohan Eaknath More 47708.00 31.5.2020 19.

Balu Shirang More 30949.00 31.5.2018

20.

Smt. Shanta Bapurav Barade 47708.00 31.5.2020 21.

Madhukar Ambrushi Ukirade 6942.00 31.5.2017 22.

Smt. Saunanda Limbraj Tale 49860.00 31.12.2020 23.

Ashok Uttreshwar Kondhare 49946.00 31.10.2024 24.

Smt. Shalan Panurang Mundhe 43399.00 31.8.2021 25.

Nanasaheb Sarjerao Karande 113880.00 28.2.2022 26.

Smt. Urmila Devarao Hange 60530.00 30.4.2022 27.

Dattatraya Baburav Jadhavar 59867.00 30.6.2024 28.

Smt. Shobha Shamrao Savant 23467.00 30.2.2019 29.

Bhausaheb Harichandar Ukirade 46033.00 30.11.2021 30.

Shriram Gopal Kavatale 52301.00 31.12.2023 31.

Ramling Chandev Jagadale 67774.00 30.8.2022 32.

Smt. Bebi Kashinath Mangalkar 43679.00 31.5.2021 33.

Smt. Kamal Kundlik Burgute 24323.00 31.5.2019 34.

Smt. Asha Vitthal Raut 5786.00 31.3.2017 35.

Dattatraya Dnyandev Doltode 46494.00 31.5.2024 36.

Shri Tukaram Ranba Umap 24764.00 31.5.2018 37.

Saroj Vitthal Shinde 42445.00 16.6.2024 38.

Shobha Rameshwar Lande 50842.00 26.3.2023 39.

Minakshri Babasaheb Kashid 43399.00 12.4.2021 40.

Satish Bhagavan Dahival 46044.00 9.2.2023 41.

Anita Tanaji Kashid 43679.00 30.6.2020 42.

Sikandar Mustfa Pathan 37175.00 10.1.2021 4.

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. 5.

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. 6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

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.

9.

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. 10.

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.)