Madhukar Vaijinath Vanve & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Judgment

#1. All the Petitioners are identically placed. The learned Advocate representing the Respondent Zilla Parishad, Solapur, agrees.

#2. The Petitioners are employees who were working with the Respondent Zilla Parishad and have 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, SUNNY THOTE 1 of 6 910-WP-9765-2025-(C).odt calculated 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 retirement 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 retirement benefits/pensionary benefits, are as under :- Sr. No. Name of the Petitioners Date of Superannuation Madhukar Vaijinath Vanve

31.05.2024 Shashikant Dagadu Hindule Amount Recovered from the Petitioners 50,937/- 2,17,648/- Shailaja Sharadrao Kasabe

31.01.2013 Died 3,26,271/- Sangeeta Nagnath Khade

28.02.2022 Died 1,17,126/- Kisan Shamrao Yadav Namdev Kerappa Kharat Mallikarjun Shivalingappa Vhanutagi Dattatrya Shankar Bobalade Jyoti Tanaji Yadav Aaba Dattu Shinde

Shivappa Mallappa Mhetre Vanashri Anil Nashte Hiralal Ananda Kondubhairi

30.04.2020

31.05.2019

31.05.2017

31.03.2025

18.10.2023 Died 31.05.2011

31.05.2017

23.03.2019 Died 31.05.2022 71,832/- 58,431/- 1,32,185/- 45,643/- 4,39,588/- 29,206/- 7,533/- 1,61,521/- 24,369/- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SUNNY THOTE 2 of 6 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Pandurang Rachappa Mali Changdeo Gendeo Kamble Nirmala Devidas Gade Pandurang Vasant Shinde Ramesh Keru Chavan Balbhim Tukaram Shinde Chandrakant Hairam Bhoi Jilahi Kondiba Tamboli Babasaheb Kondiba Shinde Siddheshwar Dayaji Sule Jayashree Anna Band @ Jayashri w/o. Bhaskar Ubale Sunanda Anil Chavan Dhananjay Yashwant Deshpande Sarojini Lingappa Gadade Dilip Baburao Tingare Kisan Vasant Kharat 30 Mangal Shantinath Annadate 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Rajaram Yashwant Patil Rajaram Raosaheb Patil Kashiraya Sharanappa Patne Jagadevi Shrishail Bhasagi Chandrakant Subhash Patil Balappa Basanna Bhasagi Popat Kundalik Lawate, Dilip Kerappa Waghmare

31.03.2005

31.05.2019

31.05.2024

31.05.2024

31.07.2024

31.05.2024

31.05.2024

31.05.2024

31.05.2024

31.05.2024

31.07.2024

04.04.2024

31.05.2024

31.08.2024

31.05.2022

31.05.2023

31.07.2017

31.05.2024

31.05.2022

31.05.2023

22.08.2018 In Service

31.08.2023

31.05.2024

31.03.2023 910-WP-9765-2025-(C).odt 38,608/- 54,801/- 55,470/- 53,913/- 48,475/- 44,009/- 56,185/- 43,244/- 48,941/- 46,970/- 49,119/- 43,244/- 64,954/- 48,208/- 47,011/- 63,488/- 12,427/- 1,59,766/- 39,853/- 51,394/- 38,874/- 1,53,120/- 83,788/- 98,238/- 96,232/-

#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 SUNNY THOTE 3 of 6 910-WP-9765-2025-(C).odt 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 in these coercive circumstances, that undertaking were extracted from some of them.

#5. The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad as well as the learned AGP, 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 st September, 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 SUNNY THOTE 4 of 6 910-WP-9765-2025-(C).odt were revised. The undertakings from some of them were taken at the stroke of their retirement.

#7. 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.

#8. 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 SUNNY THOTE 5 of 6 910-WP-9765-2025-(C).odt 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