Shaikh Amir Shaikh Kadar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Legal Reasoning

Sunanda Shriram Kumawat VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..… AND WRIT PETITION NO.3358 OF 2023 Shankar Vedu More VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..... AND WRIT PETITION NO.3359 OF 2023 Badrinath Kanhu Pawar VERSUS wp3320.23- -6- The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..… AND WRIT PETITION NO.3348 OF 2023 Atmaram Premraj Ahire VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..… AND WRIT PETITION NO.3353 OF 2023 Vandana Ashok Rajput VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..… AND WRIT PETITION NO.3360 OF 2023 Mandakini Anil Lindayat VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..… AND WRIT PETITION NO.3350 OF 2023 Manorama Sudhakar Sali VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..... AND WRIT PETITION NO.3354 OF 2023 Aruna Bhaskar Patil VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..… AND WRIT PETITION NO.3349 OF 2023 Kalabai Murlidhar Shinde VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..... AND wp3320.23- -7- 928 WRIT PETITION NO.3364 OF 2023 Arabkha Amirkha Tadavi VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ..... Advocates for Petitioners” Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar and Mr. S. B. Sontakke, in respective petitions Mr. A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities: Mr. S. K. Tambe Advocates for Zilla Parishad : Mr. S. R. Dheple and Mr. N.E. Deshmukh (in respective matters) ….. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2023. PER COURT :-

1. In all these matters, the Petitioners claim to be identically placed. The learned advocates representing the Zilla Parishad, agree.

2. Amongst these Petitioners, there are some widows who have filed the Petitions. All the original employees were working with the respective Zilla Parishads 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 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 wp3320.23- -8- have been initiated against them, 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. WP Nos. Name of the Petitioners Date of superannuation

Decision

Date of Impugned Order Amount Recovered from the petitioners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Saikh Amir Shaikh Kadar Arabkha Amirkha Tadavi 3323/2023 Ananda Sitaram Nikumbhe

30.06.2021

21.03.2022 2,14,884.00

31.12.2015

21.07.2017 3,30,448.00

30.09.2022

29.09.2022 2,65,061.00 3341/2023 Rajendra

31.05.2022

31.05.2022 2,25,675.00 Yuvraj Patil 3342/2023 Hiralal Bajirao

30.04.2022

29.04.2022 1,17,110.00 Bhalekar 3333/2023 Indubai

31.08.2018

10.10.2019 28,264.00 sevanand Thakur 3334/2023 Gulabrao

31.05.2020

01.11.2020 92,419.00 Narayan Pawar 3336/2023 Milind

31.05.2022

28.11.2022 5,94,570.00 Kashinath Chavan 9 3339/2023 Sunita Siddharth Bagul @ Bebibai Bhuta Bhamre

25.02.2021 (Died)

14.03.2022 1,61,597.00 10 3324/2023 Dinkar Mango

31.07.2021

28.03.2022 5,69,633.00 Bahiram wp3320.23- -9- 11 3340/2023 Shankarsing

31.05.2022

27.10.2022 2,24,725.00 Ramsing Rajput 12 3356/2023 Lata Devidas

31.05.2020

24.08.2020 93,534.00 Dusane @ Golhare 13 3357/2023 Prakash

31.05.2022

28.07.2022 2,33,790.00 Kashiram Rathod 14 3361/2023 Rajendra

31.01.2022

27.01.2022 1,89,691.00 Muralidhar Bramhankar 15 3335/2023 Gokul Vithal

31.05.2022

02.05.2022 1,78,695.00 Sonawane 16 3337/2023 Sugandha

31.03.2021

16.03.2021 1,61,629.00 Rajendra Mahire 17 18 3332/2023 Vijaysing Bhimsing Shinde 3325/2023 Prakash Sitaram Nikumbhe

30.11.2022

28.11.2022 2,53,858.00

31.08.2021

28.11.2022 1,43,159.00 19 3344/2023 Sindhu

31.08.2020

28.01.2021 99,376.00 Gulabrao Ambhore 20 3327/2023 Ujwala

30.06.2022

14.09.2022 2,01,494.00 Muralidhar Vispute 21 3326/2023 Hanumant

30.06.2021

21.09.2021 1,68,819.00 Sahdu Mokale 22 3329/2023 Mangla

31.05.2020

05.02.2021 1,30,224.00 Balkrushna Wani 23 3330/2023 Bhikan Daulat

31.08.2020

10.11.2020 1,60,771.00 Patil 24 3331/2023 Madhavrao

28.02.2022

15.07.2022 2,13,242.00 Tulshiram Deore 25 3338/2023 Dilip Dhana

31.12.2021

27.10.2022 2,90,420.00 Sonawane 26 3343/2023 Sunita

31.05.2021

04.08.2021 1,56,304.00 wp3320.23- -10- Siddharth Bagul @ Bebibai Bhuta Bhamre 27 3328/2023 Sunit

29.02.2016

02.07.2016 3,61,188.00 Sakharam More 28 3351/2023 Sushila Vasant

30.11.2022

05.11.2022 2,64,163.00 Chaudhari 29 3347/2023 Shaikh Aslam

31.05.2020

12.10.2020 3,14,378.00 Shaikh Isa Sikalkar 30 3355/2023 Sayarabai Wd/o. Shabbirkha Tadvi

19.06.2019 Died

29.12.2021 5,11,791.00 31 3346/2023 Nazima Wd/o Sardar Tadvi

15.10.2018 (Died)

04.03.2020 4,14,258.00 32 3345/2023 Sunanda

31.05.2020

10.08.2021 1,95,431.00 Shriram Kumawat 33 3358/2023 Shankar Vedu

31.05.2021

28.07.2021 3,65,910.00 More 34 3359/2023 Badrinath

31.05.2022

02.09.2022 4,16,365.00 Kanhu Pawar 35 3348/2023 Atmaram

31.05.2022

23.08.2022 3,55,375.00 Premraj Ahire 36 3353/2023 Vandana Wd/o. Ashok Rajput

18.10.2014 Died

15.07.2015 1,34,172.00 37 3360/2023 Mandakini Anil

30.11.2020

30.04.2021 1,76,589.00 Lindayat 38 3350/2023 Manorama

31.03.2018

01.08.2018 2,26,345.00 Sudhakar Sali 39 3354/2023 Aruna Bhaskar Patil

31.07.2021

07.09.2022 2,39,490.00 40 3349/2023 Kalabai

34.05.2018

18.07.2019 57,472.00 Muralidhar Shinde wp3320.23- -11-

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 it 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 A.G.P., 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

1.9.2021, 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 wp3320.23- -12- 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 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.

7. 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