SANTOSH RAMCHANDAR JADHAV v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO
Case Details
31-WP-11773-2023+.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11773 OF 2023 SANTOSH RAMCHANDAR JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11774 OF 2023 SHANKAR DHANAJI MOKASARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11775 OF 2023 GOPALDAS PANDITDAS BAIRAGI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11776 OF 2023 ASHOK BUDHA AHIRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11777 OF 2023 MANGALABAI Wd/O PRAKASH MORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 1 of 7 (( 2 )) 31-WP-11773-2023+ AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11778 OF 2023 BHIMRAO BOMATU SONAWANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11779 OF 2023 JATAN SHRAVAN AHIRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11780 OF 2023 PRAKASH SHRAVAN BHILLA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .…
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. B. Sontakke, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent – State Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in all the Petitions .… CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 25.09.2023 PER COURT :- 1. In all these matters, the Petitioners claim to be identically placed. The learned advocates representing the Zilla Parishad, agree. 2 of 7 (( 3 )) 31-WP-11773-2023+ 2. Amongst these Petitioners, there is a widow who has filed a Petition. 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 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, are as under:- Sr. No. WP Nos. Name of the Petitioners Date of superannuati on
Decision
Date of Impugned Order Amount Recovered from the Petitioners 1 2 11773/2023 11774/2023 Santosh Ramchandar Jadhav Shankar Dhanaji Mokasare 31.05.2023 08.06.2023 3,28,891/- 30.04.2023 02.05.2023 3,10,645/- 3 of 7 (( 4 )) 31-WP-11773-2023+ 3 11775/2023 Gopaldas Panditdas Bairagi 31.08.2018 24.12.2018 46,682/- 4 11776/2023 Ashok Budha 31.05.2018 31.01.2019 39,503/- Ahire 5 11777/2023 Mangalbai 28.07.2020 12.02.2021 3,11,494/- Prakash More 6 11778/2023 Bhimrao Bomatu Sonawane 7 11779/2023 8 11780/2023 Jatan Shravan Ahire Prakash Shravan Bhilla 31.12.2018 17.12.2020 2,90,219/- 30.04.2020 19.04.2019 1,28,650/- 31.05.2019 13.09.2019 73,923/- 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 scales 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 undertakings were extracted from some of them. 4 of 7 (( 5 )) 31-WP-11773-2023+ 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 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 5 of 7 (( 6 )) 31-WP-11773-2023+ 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