Dr. Bachina Nageshwara Rao PETITIONERAge – 69 years, Occ- Pensioner v. Telangana State

{1} wp3244-17.docdrpIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.3244 OF 2017Dr. Bachina Nageshwara Rao PETITIONERAge – 69 years, Occ- Pensioner, R/o 404, S. S. Heights, Gokul Nagar, Tarnaka, Secundarabad – 500 017Telangana StateVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTSThrough its Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs DepartmentMantralaya, Mumbai -322.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 323.The DeanGovernment Medical College and HospitalAurangabad4.The Accountant General,Maharashtra – II, Nagpur.......Mr. Pallav Sinha h/f Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent - State ....... [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. J.] RESERVE DON : 11 th DECEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17 th DECEMBER, 2025 {2} wp3244-17.docJUDGMENT (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.):1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally withthe consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.2.This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:“B.By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents bedirected to refund the amount of Rs.4,55,368/- forcefully recovered by theState from the petitioner without any lawful authority aongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of the paymentthereof. C.By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents bedirected to pay Gratuity of Rs.3.5 lacs, which is the revised ceiling limit, tothe petitioner alongwith interest thereon @ 12% from the date on which itbecame payable till the date of its actual payment.D.By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents bedirected to pay the amount of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) to thepetitioner as per the MCS Rules, along with interest thereon @ 12% fromthe date on which it became payable till the date of its actual payment.E.By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents bedirected to grant the benefit of Earned Leave Encashment to the petitioneras per the GR dated 15.1.2001.F.By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents bedirected to pay Dearness Allowance to the petitioner as per the GR dated20.7.2004 along with interest on the difference amount from the date onwhich it became payable till the date of its actual payment. {3} wp3244-17.docG.By issuing an appropriate writ or direction, the respondents bedirected to revise the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.21,900/- toRs.22,400/- and calculate the pensionable pay on the basis thereof as perG. R. dated 27.1.2000.J.By issuing writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, it be declaredthat the petitioner is entitled to claim, receive and recovery full pensioni.e. 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and grade paycorresponding to his pre-revised pay scale without pro-rata deduction asper Office Memorandum dated 6.4.2016 and 13.6.2016 filed at Exh-X andY and further respondents be directed to revise the pensionable pay of thepetitioner by applying the above rule.”3.It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner is MD inRadiation Oncology and was appointed as Professor withGovernment Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad on 7thDecember, 1981. On the request made by the then State ofAndhra Pradesh, the Petitioner was sent on deputation, for beingappointed as Director of M.N.J. Institute of Oncology andRegional Cancer Center, Hyderabad, as per GovernmentResolution dated 21st June, 2001. Petitioner’s Deputation periodwas extended by the State Government twice, vide GovernmentResolution dated 9th March 2004 till 24th June 2005 and videGovernment Resolution dated 5th October, 2004 till 24th June2005. In view of the extensions granted by the State of AndhraPradesh, the Petitioner worked there till 4th April 2007 and {4} wp3244-17.docthereafter he claims to have relinquished the said post.4.In the interregnum, the Petitioner, on attaining the age ofsuperannuation, retired from his parent department i.e.Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, asProfessor of Radiotherapy on 31st August 2005. The Petitionerclaims to have rendered total 23 years, 8 months and 24 days’service from 7th December 1981 to 31st August 2005. ByGovernment Resolution dated 30th August, 2008, the State ofMaharashtra granted post facto sanction extending the period ofdeputation of the Petitioner from 25th June, 2005 to 31st August,2005. The Petitioner claims that while issuing the said GR, theRespondents have wrongly recovered an amount ofRs.4,55,368/- which was deposited by the Government ofAndhra Pradesh towards his leave salary and pension.5.The Respondents have opposed the Writ Petition, by filinga detailed reply. They have claimed that though extension wasgranted to the Petitioner up to 24th June 2005, he did not resumehis duty in the Government Medical College and Hospital,Aurangabad, hence post facto sanction was required to be givento the Petitioner from 25th June 2005 to 31st August 2005,subject to payment of dues against the Petitioner. Calculations ofthe dues of the Petitioner are also given in the affidavit in reply. {5} wp3244-17.docThe Respondents have submitted that all the benefits claimed bythe Petitioner are already extended to him and entire dues of thePetitioner are paid.6.Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned AGPfor the Respondents,at length. Perused the memo of Writ Petitionand the documents annexed thereto. 7.In support of his case, learned Advocate for the Petitionerhas relied on following judgments : I.“Rajendra Prasad Upadhyaya V/s State of U.P. through Prin. SecretaryIrrigation” 2012 SCC OnLine All 621.II.“K. C. Bajaj and Others V/s Union of India and Others” (2014) 3 SCC777III.Writ Petition No. 5042 of 2016 dated 2nd February, 2024 (Association ofCollege and Univeristy Superannuated Teachers V/s Union of India andOthers)IV.Writ Petition No. 8987 of 2014 dated 8th May, 2015 (Dr. Shafat HussainShafaquat Hussain Talib V/s The State of Maharashtra)8.Learned AGP, on the other hand, has strenuously opposedthe petition by relying on the affidavit in reply and documentsannexed thereto, by submitting that all the retiral benefits are {6} wp3244-17.docalready paid to the Petitioner in accordance with the rules andthe Petition is misconceived and hence is liable to be dismissedwith costs.9.It is evident from the documents placed on record by theRespondents that, though the period of Petitioner’s deputationwas up to 24th June 2005 and he was supposed to resume inservice of the State of Maharashtra from 25th June 2005,however, he did not resume Maharashtra Government serviceand opted to remain on deputation at Hyderabad, till he attainedthe age of superannuation. The Maharashtra Government was,therefore, required to give post facto sanction for the period 25thJune 2005 to 31st August, 2005, by order dated 30th August2008.10.In the reply affidavit, it is stated that, following dues wererecoverable from the Petitioner:a.House Building Advance :Rs.1,09,124/-b.Pay and Allowance :Rs. 32,557/-c.Government Quarter Recovery :Rs.1,50,019/-d.Recovery of excess payment:Rs. 54,165/-___________TOTAL:Rs. 3,45,865/-11.Since the Petitioner was liable to pay the above dues, thesaid amount is rightly recovered from the Petitioner. Hence, wefind no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the said {7} wp3244-17.docamount is illegally recovered from him.12.Admittedly, 6th Pay Commission benefits were conferred onthe Government servants with effect from 1st January, 2006. ThePetitioner stood retired on 31st August, 2005 and, therefore, heis not entitled to claim benefits of 6th Pay Commission. Therefore,there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that, hisbasic salary was wrongly considered while fixing the pension. 13.The record further reveals that, while calculating hispension, as per GR dated 15th November, 1999, since thePetitioner’s highest pay was Rs.24,500/-, the same was takeninto consideration while granting pension to the Petitioner.Accountant General, by communication dated 22nd March, 2010,informed that as per the GR dated 15th November, 1999, thePetitioner is entitled to get pension of RS.13,086/- per month.An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards Death Cum RetirementGratuity, which is the maximum, was sanctioned and paid to thePetitioner.14.As per Government Resolution dated 18th March, 2000,25% NPA was made applicable to the Petitioner, subject to thecondition that total basic pay plus NPA should not exceedRs.29,500/-. {8} wp3244-17.doc15.It appears from the record that at the time of retirement,the Petitioner’s basic pay was Rs.20,900/-, therefore, 50%Dearness Pay (Rs.10,450/-) payable to the Petitioner in terms ofGR dated 20th July, 2004 was sanctioned.16. The record further reveals that, the Petitioner was grantedtotal 279 days’ leave encashment.17.Thus, it is clear that, the Petitioner is paid all his dues. Theretiral benefits granted to the Petitioner are verified andsanctioned by the Accountant General, Nagpur. Thus, thePetitioner has received all the retiral benefits payable to him, asper the Rules and Government policy. 18.The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner are rendered indifferent facts and are of no help to the Petitioner’s case.19.For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in thePetition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule isdischarged. No order as to costs. [ VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/wp3244-17.doc