SALIM AKBAR KHATIK v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the above, 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
Judgment
SALIM AKBAR KHATIK VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshmukh Arvind And Pingle Vivek G AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. S.G. Karlekar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. S.S. Randive ….. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 3rd MARCH, 2023. PER COURT :-
Considering the conspectus of the matter, the learned advocates representing the litigating sides, submit that the Civil Application may be disposed off and the Writ Petition may be heard, today.
Heard the learned advocates. The Petitioner is a class III employee who has superannuated on 31.3.2018. His pay fixation was made by order dated 24.9.2009, to be made effective from 1.7.2006. After his superannuation, an order is passed by the Respondents dated
16.8.2019, contending that the Petitioner is a beneficiary of a wrong wp7655.19 -2- pay fixation and an amount of Rs.2,98,421/- is to be recovered from him. For this purpose, the gratuity, group insurance scheme amount, leave encashmet amount, T.A. and D.A. arrears, have been withheld by the employer.
The learned advocate representing the employer, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has vehemently supported the impugned order. He submits that the department has the authority of recovering the excess amount wrongly paid to the Petitioner in the light of Rule 132 and 134(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
It emerges from the record and it is undisputed before us that the Petitioner has not played any role in the purported wrong pay fixation that was paid to him. Neither has the petitioner manipulated any record, nor have allegations of fraud been levelled against him. No undertaking was tendered when benefits were extended to him in
2009. He is a class III employee, who has superannuated before the recovery was initiated.
In view of the above, 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
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.