Arun Valu Tambekar v. State of Maharashtra

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the Parties. The learned advocates representing the Respondent Zilla Parishad, Solapur agrees that the Petitioners are identically placed.

2. The Petitioners are the original employees who were working with the Respondent Zilla Parishad 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 Sneha Chavan CHAVAN 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, is as under:- Sr. No Name of the Petitioners Date of retirement Date of Impugned recovery order Recovered amount

34 Namdeo s/o Rambhau Pagar 31/05/2022 12/10/2022 3,80,263 35 Ravindra s/o Dattatray Lachake 28/02/2022 15/06/2022 2,36,181

46 Ramesh s/o Vitthal Ahire 31/05/2020 2703/2023 90,000 47 Pundalik Yashwant Jopale (Died) Through Its LRS Vimal Pundalik Jopale 30/06/2021 02/08/2021 1,52,510 48 Gangadhar Govind Jopale 30/06/2021 28/07/2021 3,05,345

56 Popat Nimba Bhoye 31/05/2021 28/07/2021 1,39,896 57 Vijay Chiman Dusane (Died) Through Its LRS Surekha Vijay Dusane 25/03/2019 24/10/2019 2,39,698 58 Chandrakant Bhagavantrao Shinde 31/12/2021 22/04/2022 1,84,583 59 Dhanaji Rajaram Warungase 31/05/2020 17/12/2020 94,996

80 Hiralal Punjaram Shevale 31/05/2020 05/08/2020 91,381 81 Gorakhnath Pandharinath Pardeshi 31/05/2021 20/03/2021 2,05,663 82 Sunanda Navasa Ahire 31/05/2019 17/12/2019 53,290

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 the wrongful revision of their pay scales or orchestrating a 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 undertakings were extracted from some of them.

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 (Aurangabad Bench) 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.

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 as that 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 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 Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334 = AIR 2015 SC 696, would apply to this case.

9. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The amounts due and payable to the Petitioners, as well as to the widows and other legal heirs, if that is the case, after the superannuation of the said employees/death of the employees, would be paid to these Petitioners or their widows or other legal heirs, if that is the case, within a period of 90 days.

10. The learned advocate for the Petitioners submits on instructions that the Petitioners would not claim any interest on the amount which has already been recovered from them, to the extent of it's repayment. In view thereof, if the amounts are not paid within 90 days, interest at the rate of Rs.5% p.a. from the date of this order, will be paid.

11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)