RAJU RATAN CHAUDHARI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO
Legal Reasoning
5-WP-6436-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6438 OF 2024RAJU RATAN CHAUDHARI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6441 OF 2024VANDANA MAHADU GADHARI VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6443 OF 2024RAJENDRA DULLABHSING PARDESHI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6444 OF 2024SHANTILAL AAKHATYA KOKANI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6440 OF 2024SUBHASH NIMBA CHAVAN VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 1 of 8
Legal Reasoning
(( 2 ))5-WP-6436-2024WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6439 OF 2024RAVINDRA MADHAVRAO SAINDANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6442 OF 2024SHAMKANT SHRIRAM BHAMARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .…Mr. B. S. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. S. J. Salgare, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 .…CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:01.07.2024PER COURT :- 1.In all these matters, the Petitioners are identically placed.All of them are Class-III employees working on the post of ArogyaSevak. All of them were granted revision in pay scale in terms of the“one step pay scale” that is made available for working in thetribal/PESA areas. All of them retired on attaining the age ofsuperannuation, in 2023. An undertaking was extracted from all ofthem at the stroke of their retirement. 2 of 8 (( 3 ))5-WP-6436-20242.Following is the chart indicating the Writ Petition, thenames of the Petitioners, the dates of superannuation, dates ofrecovery, total amount recovered and the reason for recovery:SRNOWRITPETITIONNUMBERNAME OFPETITIONERDATE OF SUPER-ANNUATIONDATE OF RECOVERYTOTAL AMOUNTRECOVERED FROMPETITIONERRECOVERY TOWARDS16438/2024Raju Ratan Chaudhari31.05.202306.06.20234,56,618/-Wrong payfixation ofone step payscale26439/2024Ravindra Madhavrav Saindane31.12.202118.02.20223,59,164/-Wrong payfixation ofone step payscale36440/2024Subhash Nimba Chavan31.03.202231.03.20223,02,160/-Wrong payfixation ofone step payscale46441/2024Vandana Mahadu Gadhari31.03.202221.04.20222,36,970/-Wrong payfixation ofone step payscale56442/2024Shamkant Shriram Bhamare31.10.202212.12.20223,83,164/-Wrong payfixation ofone step payscale66443/2024Rajendra DhulabhsingPardeshi23.03.202331.05.20233,62,273/-Wrong payfixation ofone step payscale76444/2024Shantilal Aakhatya Kokani31.01.202428.01.20245,41,802/-Wrong payfixation ofone step payscale3. The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad hasstrenuously opposed these Petitions on the following grounds:-(a) None of these Petitioners protested while executing theundertaking. 3 of 8 (( 4 ))5-WP-6436-2024(b)The amounts which were found to have been paid inexcess, have already been recovered from the retiral duesof these Petitioners.(c) It will have to be verified as to whether these Petitionerswere actually working in the tribal/PESA area. (d)The Petitioners could have raised a grievance with theZilla Parishad instead of approaching this Court directly.(e) It would be appropriate to dispose off these Petitions anddirect them to approach the Zilla Parishad. 4.There are several judgments and orders passed by theBombay High Court in such cases in the light of the judgmentsdelivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir andothers Vs. State of Bihar and others – (2009) 3 SCC 475 and State ofPunjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others –(2015) 4 SCC 334. This Court has also considered the tendency ofemployers in extracting written undertakings from the employees atthe stroke of their retirement vide the judgment delivered dated14.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.2810 of 2024 (Vijaya Khandu TayadeVs. the State of Maharashtra and others) and Writ Petition No.2863 of2024 (Asha Dhanraj Nimbalkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra andothers). It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 4 to 7hereunder:- 4 of 8 (( 5 ))5-WP-6436-2024“4.We have considered the strenuous submissions of thelearned Advocates. It is, however, undisputed that none of thesePetitioners had played any fraud or were personally involved ina wrongful revision of their pay scales or orchestratingwrongful revision by manipulating the record. There is noallegation of fraud or deceit against any of them. Noundertaking was acquired from them as and when the revisedpay scales become payable. In some cases, at the stroke ofretirement, a condition was imposed that they should executean undertaking and it is in these coercive circumstances, thatundertakings were extracted from some of them.5.The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad aswell as the learned A.G.P., submit that once an undertaking isexecuted, the case of the Petitioners would be covered by thelaw laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court ofPunjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, 2016 AIR(SCW) 3523. Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered bythis Court on 01.09.2021, in Writ Petition No.13262 of 2018filed by Ananda Vikram Baviskar Vs. State of Maharashtra andothers. 6. We have referred to the law laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana andothers vs. Jagdev Singh (supra). However, the record revealsthat no undertaking was taken from these Petitioners when thepay scales were revised. The undertakings from some of them 5 of 8 (( 6 ))5-WP-6436-2024were taken at the stroke of their retirement. An undertakinghas to be taken from the candidate on the day the revised payscale is made applicable to him and the payment commences.At the stroke of superannuation of the said employee, askinghim to tender an undertaking, practically amounts to anafterthought on the part of the employer and a mode ofcompelling the candidate to execute an undertaking since theyare apprehensive that their retiral benefits would not bereleased until such undertaking is executed. Such anundertaking will not have the same sanctity of an undertakingexecuted when the payment of revised pay scale hadcommenced. We, therefore, respectfully conclude that the viewtaken in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs.Jagdev Singh (supra), would not be applicable to the case ofthese Petitioners, more so since the recovery is initiated aftertheir superannuation. 7. Taking into account that these Petitioners were not involvedin any mischief, fraud or deceit in orchestrating their wrongfulpay revision, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others, 2009 (3)SCC 475 and State of Punjab and other vs. Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334 = AIR 2015 SC 696, wouldapply to these cases.”5.It is undisputed that no fraud or ulterior motives havebeen attributed to the conduct of the Petitioners. It is also not the 6 of 8 (( 7 ))5-WP-6436-2024case of the Zilla Parishad that they were instrumental in manipulatingtheir pay scales and allotting one extra increment in their favour. Thelearned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has canvassed that the ZillaParishad should be given an opportunity to verify as to whether anyof these Petitioners were actually working in the tribal/PESA area.6.The learned Advocate for the Petitioners counters the saidsubmission on the basis of the pleadings on oath in the Petitions andfurther submits that barring Taluka and District Nandurbar, all otherTalukas in District Nandurbar, fall in the tribal/PESA areas and allthese Petitioners were working in such tribal/PESA areas. They werepaid the one step extra increment only because they were working intribal/PESA areas. 7.In the light of the above, the law laid down in Syed AbdulQadir (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra), would be applicable to thecase of the Petitioners. On the issue of the undertaking, this Courthas already concluded that an undertaking extracted at the stroke ofretirement, is taking advantage of the helplessness of such Petitioners.They are at the verge of the retirement and at the time of calculatingtheir retiral benefits, an undertaking is extracted. There are instances 7 of 8 (( 8 ))5-WP-6436-2024when the Petitioners have approached this Court as the employershave not released the retiral benefits, since the Petitioners did notaccede to the demand of an amount. 8.As such, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugnedorders directing recoveries, are quashed and set aside. The recoveredamounts shall be repaid to the Petitioners within 60 days from todayand if such payment is paid within the timeline, to balance theequities, we would not impose interest. If the amounts are not paidwithin 60 days, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6%p.a. from the date of the recoveries and the interest component shallbe recovered, not from the State exchequer, but from such officer ofthe Zilla Parishad on whose conduct, the delay in payment hasoccurred. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]SMS 8 of 8