DR. LATA SHANKAR VASNANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO.12822 OF 2026
Dr. Lata Shankar Vasnani,                                     ]
Medical Officer, ESIS Hospital, Mumbai                        ] .. Petitioner
                Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,                                  ]
   Through General Administration Department                  ]
2. The Secretary,                                             ]
   Public Health Department,                                  ]
   Government of Maharashtra                                  ]
3. The Accounts Officer,                                      ]
   Pay Verification Department,                               ]
   Directorate of Accounts and Treasury,                      ]
   Konkan, Mumbai                                             ]
4. The Commissioner,                                          ]
   State Employees’ Insurance Scheme, Mumbai                  ]
5. The Medical Superintendent,                                ]
   E.S.I.S. Hospital, Mumbai                                  ] .. Respondents


Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai with Ms. Mohini A. Desai (Rehpade), Mr. Vijay P.
Singh, Ms. Daksha M. Punghera and Mr. Deepesh Ramrakhiani,
Advocates, i/by Desai Legal LLP, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Additional Government Pleader with Smt. R.M.
Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of
Maharashtra.

                          CORAM :        SUMAN SHYAM &
                                         GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

                          DATE     :     7th October, 2026.
P.C. :

1.       The Petitioner herein, who is due to retire from service on

attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31st December,

                                       1/5
907-WP-12822-2026.doc                                                           Dixit
2026, had approached the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal

(MAT), Mumbai Bench by filing Original Application No.851 of 2026

assailing the “Objection Memos” dated 10th June, 2026 and 8th July, 2026

issued by the Accounts Officer (Pay Verification Unit, Konkan) issuing

advisory for recovery of the excess payment made to the Petitioner on

the ground that she was not entitled to receive the same as the Petitioner

had failed to pass Marathi language examination within the period

prescribed by the Government Decision dated 30 th December, 1987. In

the Original Application, the writ Petitioner had also made a prayer for

interim relief, directing stay of any further action towards recovery of the

excess amount. However, the learned Tribunal was of the view that since

no action for recovery had yet been initiated on the basis of the

“Objection Memos” of the Pay Verification Unit, the Original

Application was premature. Consequently, by the impugned order dated

5th August, 2026, not only was the interim relief declined but, taking note

of the submissions of the learned counsel for the Original Applicant,

which need not be recorded in this order, the Original Application itself

was dismissed in limine.


2.      Assailing the order dated 5th August, 2026, Mr. Abhijeet Desai,

learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that in view of the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and

                                    2/5
907-WP-12822-2026.doc                                                    Dixit
Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors.1, more particularly the

observations made in paragraph 18(ii), no recovery of any excess amount

is permissible from an employee who is due to retire within one year. Mr.

Desai has further argued that with a view to implement the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih, the Government

of Maharashtra (Finance Department) has also issued Government

Resolution dated 17th August, 2023 bearing No.Pension-1018/C.R.

34/Service-3 whereby, it has been categorically laid down that any

decision to go for recovery of excess amount must be in consonance with

the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, submits Mr. Desai,

the learned MAT has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the

prayer for interim relief as well as final relief in the Original Application.


3.      Ms. Kavita Solunke, learned Additional Government Pleader, on

the other hand, has submitted that the Objection Memos are the letters of

advisory and the Department is yet to initiate any action in the matter on

the basis of such Memos. As such, the learned Tribunal has rightly held

that the Original Application was premature. Such order of the learned

Tribunal, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court.


4.      After examining the material on record, we find that although

there are Objection Memos issued by the Accounts Officer proposing

1    (2015) 4 SCC 334
                                     3/5
907-WP-12822-2026.doc                                                      Dixit
recovery of excess amount from the Petitioner; yet, there is no order

issued by the Administrative Department to such effect nor is there any

move to recover the amount from the Petitioner. It is no doubt correct

that in case of excess payment, there may be recovery of the same from

the employee. However, for making such recovery, the procedure laid

down in the Government Resolution as well as the principles formulated

in paragraph 18 of the decision of the Rafiq Masih must be adhered to.

Since no action of recovery from the Petitioner has admittedly been

initiated till now, it would not be possible for this Court to make any

further observation in the matter at this point of time. In such view of the

matter, we are of the opinion that if the Department chooses to take any

further action for recovery of the excess amount, the Petitioner must be

given an opportunity to present her case.


5.      Therefore, without interfering with the impugned order of the

learned Tribunal, we dispose of this Writ Petition by providing that if any

further action is initiated by the Department for recovery of the excess

amount from the Petitioner, in that event a prior show cause notice,

giving at least three weeks time, shall be served upon her and the

Petitioner shall be heard in the matter before any effective order is

passed thereon.


6.      Needless        to   mention   herein   that   while   considering   the
                                        4/5
907-WP-12822-2026.doc                                                        Dixit
                       representation of the Petitioner, if any, the Authorities would bear in

                       mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

                       Rafiq Masih as well as the norms prescribed by the Government

                       Resolution dated 17th August, 2023.


                       7.    Writ Petition stands disposed of.




                       [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]                     [ SUMAN SHYAM, J. ]




           Digitally
           signed by
SNEHA SNEHA
      ABHAY DIXIT
                                                         5/5
ABHAY Date:       907-WP-12822-2026.doc                                                    Dixit
DIXIT 18:17:40
      2026.10.08
           +0530