Mr. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh & Ors.

4. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Rural Development Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar The Chief Accounts and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar The Education Officer (P) Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar .… … RESPONDENTS

Mr. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. V. C. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 .… CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 20.06.2025 901-WP-6923-2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:- RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

The Petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B) as under:-

(B) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass necessary order and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.2.2024 issued by finance department Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar to the extent of recovery of Rs.250229/- made from pensionable payment and the authorities may kindly be directed to refund the said amount within four weeks or as found just and proper by this Hon’ble Court to the petitioner.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for respective sides and have gone through the Petition paper-book with their assistance. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad, has vehemently opposed this Petition and submits that since an undertaking was given by the Petitioner, he 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)

It is undisputed that the Petitioner who belongs to the reserved category, was in the zone of promotion and he was granted 901-WP-6923-2025 the promotion on 07.05.2013, to the post of Headmaster. He was scheduled to superannuate on 31.05.2023. Surprisingly, on

01.05.2023, a holiday for the State of Maharashtra, an undertaking is purportedly taken from the Petitioner. Based on such undertaking, the Zilla Parishad desires to reverse the clock and cause a recovery on the ground that the Petitioner was wrongfully granted the promotion.

The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh (supra), is on completely different facts. In the instant case, when the pension proposal and the retirement papers of the Petitioner started moving from desk to desk, the Zilla Parishad seems to have noticed some error committed more than 10 years ago. Since the Petitioner was on the verge of retirement, an undertaking was said to be extracted from him.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that on

01.05.2023, two pages of printed undertakings were shown to him and he was called upon to sign on the last page. He had no option but to sign since the management would have withheld all his retiral benefits. He relies upon the view taken by this Court vide order dated

01.09.2023, in Writ Petition No.11395 of 2021 (Ulka Ratnakar 901-WP-6923-2025 Bansode Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others). So also, we find that the case of the Petitioner would be covered by the law laid down in Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2009(3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and other Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.,