AMBADAS BHIKA INGALE v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & Ors.

In all these matters, the Petitioners claim to be identically placed. The learned advocates representing the Zilla Parishads, agree. 920wp5750to923

Amongst these Petitioners, there is one widower and one widow 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.

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 retiral benefits/pensionary benefits, is as under:- WP Nos. Sr. No. Name of the Petitioners Date of superannu- ation/VRS

Date of Impugned Order Amount Recovered from the petitioners 1 2 5750//202 3 Ambadas Bhika Ingale

30.04.2018 24.08.2018 3,22,200/- 6954/2023 Ushabai

01.05.2016 07.07.2017 1,89,385/- Bhimsing Patil (Deceased) Her LRs. Sanjay Sursing Deore Latabai Subhansing Patil 3

31.03.1010

16.02.2022 1,28,303/- 920wp5750to923 3-A 6956/2023 Govinda

30.04.2021

15.06.2020 1,38,625/- 4 Raghunath Shinde Jitendra Rangrao Patil (Deceased) Through his LRs. Vandana w/o Jitendra Patil

17.03.2021

11.11.2021 7,60,238/-

We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned advocates. It is, however, undisputed that none of these Petitioners/deceased 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.

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. 920wp5750to923

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. 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.

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 920wp5750to923 Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others, 2009 (3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and other vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.