U.O.I., Thr. Director General Ordnance (C And S) Directorate Of Ordnance (C And S) Kolkata And ORS. v. Sanjay Sudhakar Meshramkar

2026:BHC-NAG:1418-DB 105.WP.4349.2025 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4349 OF 2025 Union of India, thr is Director General Ordnance (C & S) Directorate of Ordnance (C & S) & Ors.

Vs.

Sanjay Sudhakar Meshramkar ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Mr. Saurabh Chaudhari, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. B. Lahiri, Advocate for the Respondent.

------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ.

DATE : 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. Saurabh Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2.

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking challenge to the impugned judgment dated 11th July, 2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, in Original Application No. 2076/2020. The learned Tribunal held that the recovery initiated by the present petitioners (employer), against the present respondent (employee) was unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the case of the respondent is covered by the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the fact that the respondent is a Group-C employee and the recovery was initiated after the respondent's retirement, on the

105.WP.4349.2025 2/2 basis of the revised PPO dated 24th September, 2019. The fact remains that the respondent, who was working as a Pharmacist since 10th November, 1978, retired from service on 28th February, 2018. The PPO dated 30th October, 2017 governed the pension and retiral benefits, which were paid to the respondent from October 2017 to October 2019. It was only in November 2019 that the petitioners unilaterally reduced the respondent's pension by issuing a revised PPO dated 24th September, 2019.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any misrepresentation or fraud committed on the part of the respondent in obtaining the pay-scale or PPO on the basis of which salary and pension had been paid to the respondent. 5.

In view of the above, no perversity is shown in the impugned judgment dated 11th July, 2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, and hence the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/01/2026 13:10:18