Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manohar Bappaji Gaikwad, was a Lower Division Clerk working with the Civil Court at Kallam, District Osmanabad. On 21.11.2006, he received an advance increment for excellent work based on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. He superannuated on 31.10.2021. While processing his pension papers, respondent No.5 (Accounts Officer) raised an objection on 09.07.2021, concluding that the advance increment was wrongly granted due to the applicability of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations from 01.01.2016. Consequently, the learned Civil Judge, J.D. passed an order dated 27.10.2021 directing recovery of Rs.67,918/-, which was subsequently recovered from his pensionary benefits on 21.06.2022. The petitioner challenged these orders by filing a writ petition seeking quashing of the recovery order and refund of the amount. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Mahadu Datturao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (WP No.1147/2018 decided on 09.01.2020), which applied the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. The Court noted that the petitioner was a Class III employee and there was no allegation of misrepresentation. The Court held that recovery from a retired employee belonging to Class III category, who had not misrepresented, is impermissible. The impugned orders dated 09.07.2021 and 27.10.2021 were quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.67,918/- to the petitioner within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Pensionary Benefits - Advance Increment Recovery - Recovery from retired Class III employee without misrepresentation is impermissible - The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk, was granted an advance increment in 2006 which was later sought to be recovered after his retirement in 2021 - The Court held that recovery from a retired employee belonging to Class III category, who had not misrepresented, is not permissible as per the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 - The impugned orders were quashed and the respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recovery of Rs.67,918/- from the pensionary benefits of a retired employee, who was a Class III employee and had not misrepresented, is permissible in law.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 09.07.2021 and 27.10.2021 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.67,918/- to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Recovery from pensionary benefits of retired employees
- Advance increment recovery
- Applicability of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih
- Class III employee protection
- No misrepresentation by employee
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 9
WRIT PETITION NO.7291 OF 2022
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Sanjay A. Deshmukh
Mr. L.H. Kawale for petitioner; Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. R.J. Godbole for respondent No.3; Mr. B.B. Kulkarni for respondent No.4
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, General Administration Department; The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department; The Principal District and Sessions Judge in Administrative capacity, District Court, Osmanabad; Accountant General-II, Nagpur; Accounts Officer, Aurangabad Through Pay Verification Department, Aurangabad; The Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Deleted)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging recovery of amount from pensionary benefits of a retired employee.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 09.07.2021 passed by respondent No.5 and letter dated 27.10.2021 of the learned Civil Judge, J.D., Kallam, and direction to refund Rs.67,918/- deducted from pensionary benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a retired Lower Division Clerk, had his pensionary benefits reduced by Rs.67,918/- on account of recovery of an advance increment granted in 2006, which was later deemed wrongly granted.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner relied on the judgment in Mahadu Datturao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (WP No.1147/2018 decided on 09.01.2020) which applied State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.
Issues
Whether recovery of advance increment from a retired Class III employee without misrepresentation is permissible.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that recovery from a retired employee belonging to Class III category, who had not misrepresented, is impermissible as per State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.
Ratio Decidendi
Recovery from a retired employee belonging to Class III category, who had not misrepresented, is impermissible in law as per the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk with the Civil Court at Kallam, Dist.Osmanabad.
The petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2021 and his pension papers were forwarded.
Respondent No.5 raised an objection on 09.07.2021 concluding that such advance increment was wrongly granted due to the applicability of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations from 01.01.2016.
Consequentially, the learned Civil Judge, J.D. passed the impugned order dated 27.10.2021, directing recovery of Rs.67,918/- and the same has been recovered.
The petitioner relies upon the judgment delivered by this Court dated 09.01.2020 in WP No.1147/2018 filed by Mahadu Datturao Pawar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others.
Procedural History
The petitioner was granted an advance increment on 21.11.2006. He superannuated on 31.10.2021. On 09.07.2021, respondent No.5 objected to the increment. On 27.10.2021, the Civil Judge ordered recovery of Rs.67,918/-, which was recovered on 21.06.2022. The petitioner filed WP No.7291/2022 challenging these orders.
