SURESH RUPCHAND SONAWANE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Bolkar Yogesh B. AGPs for Respondent No.1-State: Mr. P.S. Patil, Mr. S.K. Tambe, Mr. S.G. Sangle, Mr V.M. Kagne and Mr. S.G. Karlekar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. S.R. Dheple ….. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 3rd MARCH, 2023. PER COURT :-

The Writ Petition (St.) No. 7137 of 2023 is not on board. Taken on Board by the consent of the parties as it is an identical matter. The learned advocate for the Petitioners has placed a ready reference chart indicating names of the Petitioners/widow, writ petition numbers and other details. The same is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. wp2605.23- -4-

All these Petitioners are identically placed. All the original employees, who are Petitioners (barring writ petition No. 2503 of 2023 wherein the widow of deceased employee is the Petitioner), have superannuated from employment. All have been subjected to recovery of amounts, purportedly for the reason that the amounts that were paid to them towards their revised pay scales in view of acquiring certificate of the MS-CIT almost a decade ago, were wrongly paid to them.

It is undisputed that these Petitioners were not personally involved in the revision of their pay scales. They were also not involved in manipulating such revision. There is no allegation of fraud or deceit against them. No undertaking was obtained from these Petitioners on the date when pay scale was revised and the payment of revised pay scale commenced. In some cases, at the stroke of retirement, a condition was imposed that they should execute an undertaking and it is in these circumstances that an undertaking has been extracted.

The learned advocate representing the Zilla Parishad as well as the learned A.G.Ps. 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 the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, 2016 AIR (SCW) 3523. Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by this wp2605.23- -5- Court on 1.9.2021, in writ petition No. 13262 of 2018 filed by Ananda Vikram Baviskar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others.

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). The record reveals that no undertaking was taken from these Petitioners when the pay scales were revised. An undertaking from some of them was taken at the stroke of their retirement. An undertaking has to be taken from the candidate on the day the revised pay scale is made applicable to him and the payment of such pay scale 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 worried 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 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.

Taking into account that these Petitioners were not involved in any mischief, fraud or deceit in orchestrating their wp2605.23- -6- 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