Bombay High Court
KALYAN BHAURAO MOREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETORY NAGAR VIKAS DEPT AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court quashed the orders directing recovery from the petitioner’s retirement benefits, holding that such recovery is not permissible for a Class‑III employee post‑superannuation.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Class‑III Superior Field Worker, challenged orders dated 04‑07‑2025 and 25‑09‑2025 that sought to recover Rs 5,10,747 from his gratuity and other retirement benefits on the ground that he had not passed the mandatory MSCIT examination. He had been granted an exemption from the MSCIT requirement upon turning 50 in 2017, and later actually passed the examination in 2020, a fact the respondents allegedly ignored. The court examined whether a post‑superannuation recovery could be ordered against a Class‑III employee’s retirement benefits, relying on Supreme Court precedents that such recovery is barred. It held that the exemption order was never revoked and that the recovery orders violated established jurisprudence. Consequently, the recovery orders were quashed, the petitioner was directed to be refunded any amount recovered with 6% interest, and any pending retirement benefits were to be paid with interest, except gratuity which carries 10% interest.
Issues considered
- Whether recovery of amounts from the retirement benefits of a Class‑III employee for non‑completion of the MSCIT examination is permissible after superannuation.
- Whether the exemption granted in 2017 remains valid despite the later discovery of the petitioner’s actual passing of the MSCIT exam in 2020.
Subjects
- MSCIT examination
- retirement benefits
- recovery
- exemption
- Class‑III employee
- gratuity
- interest
- superannuation
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9191-DB
1150-26-WP.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1150 OF 2026
Kalyan Bhaurao More
Age: 58, Occupation: Pensioner,
R/o. Row House No.9,
Pahade Residency, Ramkrishna Nagar,
Garkheda, Dist. Aurangabad. …. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Nagar Vikas Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2. Commissioner Municipal Corporation,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)
3. Head Officer,
Municipal Corporation,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) …. Respondents
......
Ms. A.N.Ansari, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State
Mr. Parth Salunke, Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 27 FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Smt. Vibha V. Kankanwadi, J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission.
1150-26-WP.odt
{2}
2. The present petition challenges the order dated 04.07.2025
passed by Respondent No. 2 and order dated 25.09.2025, whereby
recovery from the retirement benefits of the petitioner on account of not
passing the MSCIT examination within time was directed.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Superior
Field Worker (SFW) in the Health Department by order dated
07.07.1992. He stood retired on 31.07.2025 upon attaining the age of
superannuation. The petitioner was granted exemption from passing the
MSCIT examination with effect from 15.07.2017, i.e., on completion of
50 years of age. However, after retirement, the petitioner was served
with office order dated 04.07.2025, stating that recovery of the amount
for the period from 01.01.2008 to 15.07.2017 was to be effected on the
ground that he had not passed the MSCIT examination, and further
stating that an excess amount of Rs. 5,10,747/- should be recovered
from the petitioner’s gratuity. The petitioner states that, in fact, he had
passed the MSCIT examination in 2020. This fact appears not to have
been taken note of. Further, the petitioner is a Class-III employee, and in
view of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, recovery of
the excess amount cannot be ordered from the retiral benefits.
1150-26-WP.odt
{3}
4. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned AGP
waives for respondent No.1-State and learned advocate Mr. Parth
Salunke waives for respondents No.2 and 3.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner, after taking us through
the documents on record, placed reliance on the decision in Writ
Petition No. 6763 of 2023 (Kahn Almas Zohara d/o. Gulam Ahmed
Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, decided on 09.02.2024 ).
Reliance was also placed on the decisions in Sayyed Abdul Qadir vs.
State of Bhihar, in 2009 (3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab & Others vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334.
6. Here, it is to be noted that the petitioner passed the MSCIT
examination in the year 2020; however, this fact appears not to have
been taken note of, and therefore, entry of the same was not taken in
the service book. In fact, as per the Government Resolution dated
02.09.2003, the Government had made the said course of MSCIT, i.e.,
the Computer Course, compulsory and had given time to the employees
to appear for the examination. It also prescribed that if they failed to
clear it, then they would not be entitled to the increment. Later on, the
duration to pass the said MSCIT examination came to be extended from
time to time, but it could not have been beyond 2006 as per the
extended time in the Government Resolution. The petitioner appears to
1150-26-WP.odt
{4}
have passed the course in 2020, and therefore, respondent No. 2
appears to have later realized that granting exemption upon the
petitioner attaining the age of 50 years was incorrect, and thereafter
recovery was initiated.
7. Here, it is to be noted that the order granting exemption came to
be passed on 15.07.2017. The petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2025.
The said order granting exemption was never recalled by respondent
No. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and
that recovery has been ordered after his superannuation. Therefore, the
ratio laid down in Sayyed Abdul Qadir (supra), Rafiq Masih (supra),
as well as Khan Almas Zohara (supra) and Bhimrao Jadhavrao Patil
(supra), would apply. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
8. The impugned orders dated 04.07.2025 and 25.09.2025 directing
recovery stand quashed and set aside.
9. If the amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same
shall be refunded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
within a period of ninety (90) days.
10. If all other consequential retirement benefits have not been paid,
they shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6%
1150-26-WP.odt
{5}
per annum for the delayed payment, save and except the gratuity
amount, which shall carry the statutory interest component at the rate
of 10% per annum.
11. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…