Radharaman Pandharinath Butala v. State Of Maharashtra Thor. The Secretary Education Department Mantralaya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4935 OF 2025 NIKITA KAILAS DARADE NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2025.05.02 18:42:16 +0530
1. RADHARAMAN PANDHARINATH BUTALA Age-65 yrs, Occ - Retired R/o- Vakavali Tal - Dapoli, Dist - Ratnagiri
2. MAMATA MARUTI SHINDE Age-65 yrs, Occ - Retired, R/o-Lanja Tal-Lanja, Dist - Ratnagiri.
3. PRAKASH SITARAM APANDKAR Age-65 yrs, Occ - Retired, R/o-Ringane, Tal - Lanja, Dist - Ratnagiri.
4. MUBARAK HAIDARALI SHΑΙΚΗ Age-65 yrs, Occ - Retired, R/o-Lanja, Tal-Lanja, Dist - Ratnagiri.
5. VISHWAS NAMDEO TALSANDEKAR Age - 66 yrs, Occ - Retired, R/o - Lanja, Tal-Lanja, Dist - Ratnagiri.
6. JYOTI PRAKASH PATKI Age-66 Occ-retired R/o - Devrukh Tal-Sangameshwar, Dist - Ratnagiri
7. LALITA GOVIND GODE Age-65, Occ- Retired R/o Bhadkamba Tal-Sangameshwar Dist - Ratnagiri
8. NANDKUMAR BAPU DESAI Age-65 Occ-Retired R/o-Samarth Krupa, Devrukh Dattanagar Tal- Sangameshwar, Dist - Ratnagiri
9. SANJIVAN SHIVRAM SAWANT Age-65 Occ-Retired R/o - Ujgaon Tal-Sangameshwar Dist - Ratnagiri
10. SANTOSH KASHINATH PARADHI Age-65 Occ- Retired R/o - Karjuve Tal-Sangameshwar Dist - Ratnagiri
11. SHUBHANGI VISHNU KAMBLE Age-65 Occ-Retired R/o-Sakharpa Tal-Sangameshwar Dist-Ratnagiri
12. RAMESH NARAYAN DAVRE Age-65 Occ-Retired R/o-Sakharpa Tal- Sangameshwar Dist- Ratnagiri
13. LAXMAN RAMJI KATE Age-65 Occ-Retired R/o- Bharane Tal-Khed Dist- Ratnagiri
14. VIJAY SITARAM JADHAV Age-65 Occretired R/o-Ruee Colony, Kalmath Gavdevadi Tal- Kankavli Dist - Sindhudurga
15. SAKHARAM RATNU MORE Age-65 Occ-Retired R/o-Jamsut Tal-Guhaghar Dist - Ratnagiri
16. VIJAY KANU JADHAV Age-65 Occ-Retired R/o-Karak Tal-Rajapur, Dist - Ratnagiri
17. BALU VISHWANATH LONDHE Age-65 Occ-Retired R/o- Nandgaon Tal-Chiplun, Dist - Ratnagiri
18. RANJANA RAOSAHEB SHINDE Age-65 Occ Retired R/o - Chiplun Tal-Chiplun Dist - Ratnagiri
19. RUPALI TUKARAM TERAVKAR Age-65 Occ - Retired R/o-Pedhe Pankarvadi Tal-Chiplun Dist - Ratnagiri
20. KANCHAN KIRAN BAPAT Age-65 Occ- Retired R/o - Ganpatipule Tal & Dist - Ratnagiri
21. SNEHAL SUHAS SHINDE Age - 65 Occ - Retired R/o - Dapoli (Udaynagar)
Tal - Dapoli, Dist - Ratnagiri
22. SMITA CHANDRAKANT JOSHI Age-65, Occ- Retired R/o- Veravali (B) Tal- Lanja, Dist- Ratnagiri
23. SHANKAR VITTHAL BHARADE Age - 65, Occ - Retired R/o-Tetavali Tal - Dapoli, Dist - Ratnagiri
24. MIRABAI DHONDIRAM KAMBLE Age- 65yrs, Occ- Retired R/o- Khed, Tal- Khed, Dist- Ratnagiri .....PETITIONERS
Versus
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Through The Secretary, Education Department Mantralaya (Notice to be served on Government Pleader, High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (Primary) Division Mumbai, Mumbai-1.
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Zilla Parishad,, Dist- Ratnagiri
4. THE EDUCATION OFFICER(PRIMARY) Zilla Parishad,, Dist- Ratnagiri
5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTANT AND FINANCE OFFICER Zilla Parishad Ratnagiri Dist- Ratnagiri ....RESPONDENTS Mr. Shashank Mangale a/w Mr. Satish Raut a/w Mr. Tanmay Shembavanekar for the Petitioners.
Mr. B. V. Salunkhe, i/b Mr. Ashish Pawaskar for the Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5.
Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge,J.):- 1.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2.
The 24 Petitioners are identically placed. They are all
working with Zilla Parishad Ratnagiri. They have put forth prayer clause (b), which reads as under:
"(b) That by Writ of Mandamus and or by appropriate writ, direction and order of similar nature, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders of recovery in respect of Petitioners at Exhibit B-1 to B-24 passed by the Respondent No.5." 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 retirement benefits/pensionary benefits, are as under:
Retired Date Z. P. School Date Of Impugned Order 1.
RADHARAMAN PANDHARINATH BUTALA Sr.
No Retired Teacher's Name Amt. Of Recovery (In Rupees) 34377 31/10/18 SAKHLOLI DAPOLI 21/01/18 2.
MAMATA MARUTI SHINDE 428905 01/01/18 RAVRI LANJA 21/05/18 3.
PRAKASH SITARAM APANDKAR 26669 31/07/18 YERDAV NO.2 RAJAPUR 19/07/18 4.
MUBARAK HAIDARALI SHAIKH 23738 31/05/18 INDAVATI LANJA 17/05/18 5.
VISHWAS NAMDEO TALSANDEKAR 12789 31/01/17 MAJAL LANJA 16/01/17 6.
JYOTI PRAKASH PATKI 261642 01/12/17 DEVRUKH NO. 1 SANGAMESHWAR 01/09/18 7.
LALITA GOVIND GODE 54262 30/11/18 SAKHARPA SANGAMESHWAR 01/09/18 8.
NANDKUMAR BAPU DESAI 38159 31/12/18 HARPUDE SANGAMESHWAR 05/09/18 9.
SANJIVAN SHIVRAM SAWANT 25060 31/05/18 PARGAON SANGAMESHWAR 18/05/18 10.
SANTOSH KASHINATH PARADHI 32886 31/12/18 DHAMA PUR NO.5 SANGAMESHWAR 05/11/18 11.
SHUBHANGI VISHNU KAMBLE 22242 31/05/18 SAKHARPA JOYSHI SANGAMESHWAR 21/05/18 12.
RAMESH NARAYAN DARVE 30415 30/09/18 KINER SUTAR SANGAMESHWAR 18/08/18 LAXMI RAMJI KATE 148228 02/01/18 BHARNE BAIT KHED 11/06/18 14.
VIJAY SITARAM JADHAV 25943 31/05/18 LOTE NO. 1 KHED 23/05/18 15.
SAK1HARAM RATNU MORE 179291 01/06/18 SHEER NO.
GUHAGHAR 13/08/18 16.
VIJAY KANU JADHAV 130343 31/08/18 TALAVADE RAJAPUR 06/08/18 17.
BALU VISHWANATH LONDHE 139942 31/05/18 NANDGAON CHIPLUN 28/05/18 18.
RANJANA RAOSAHEB SHINDE 71375 30/11/19 KONDMALA CHIPLUN 21/01/20 19.
RUPALI TUKARAM TERAVKAR 55385 01/02/18 PEDHE PAVANKAR CHIPLUN 23/05/18 20.
KANCHAN KIRAN BAPAT 22953 01/06/18 NIVENDI KHALCHI RATNAGIRI 08/10/18 21.
SNEHAL SUHAS SHINDE 106847 01/04/18 PAJPAN DHARI DAPOLI 11/06/18 22.
SMITA CHANDRAKANT JOSHI 172391 31/05/18 VERAVALI LANJA 23/05/18 23.
SHANKAR VITTHAL BHARADE 29982 31/05/18 SUKIVALI KHED 27/06/18 24.
MIRABAI DHONDIRAM KAMBLE 50038 30/11/18 KANYA SHALA DAPOLI 15/11/18
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 1 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 have already been recovered from these Petitioners on the dates mentioned in the chart. However, all of them have approached in this common Petition on 12th March, 2025. Hence, the amounts so deducted would be returned to the Petitioners within a period of 90 days from today. 11.
If the amounts are not repaid within 90 days, since the Petitioners have belatedly approached this Court, they would be entitled for the interest at the rate of 5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the Petition.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)