Bombay High Court
DINKAR KRISHNA SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Recovery of the excess amounts from the petitioners' retirement benefits is impermissible and the orders withholding the sums are set aside.
Summary
The petitioners, former Class III/IV employees of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, retired in 2022 and were deducted sums from their gratuity on the ground that an incorrect pay‑scale had been granted during their service. They challenged the deductions through writ petitions, arguing that recovery of excess amounts from retired employees is barred by Supreme Court jurisprudence. The respondents contended that the excess was only discovered at the time of benefit calculation and therefore could be lawfully withheld. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) which enumerates five situations where recovery is impermissible, including Class III/IV employees, retired persons, and payments made over a period exceeding five years. Applying those principles, the Court held that the Pradhikaran’s orders to withhold the amounts were unsustainable and ordered a full refund within four weeks. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the deducted amounts were to be restored to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether a public employer may recover excess salary paid on an incorrect pay‑scale from the retirement benefits of Class III/IV (Group C/D) employees who have superannuated.
Subjects
- retirement benefits
- excess payment recovery
- Class III employees
- Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
- Supreme Court precedent
- gratuity deduction
- Rafiq Masih case
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8629-DB
22-WP-4026-2024(C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4026 OF 2024
Dinkar S/o Krishna Shinde ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4298 OF 2024
Gopal S/o Shivgonda Vanmarathe ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4300 OF 2024
Rangrao S/o Shripati Kamble ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Paras D. Yadav a/w Mr. Chetan Sharma i/by Satyaki Law Associates,
for the Petitioners.
Mr. Tushar Sonawane (Through V.C.) for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 – MJP.
Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/4026/2024.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP//4298/2024.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP//4300/2024.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026.
Jamadar-SL 1 of 5
22-WP-4026-2024(C).doc
P. C. :
1. These groups of Petitions raise identical issues and hence are
being decided by this common order.
2. In Writ Petition No.4026 of 2024, the Petitioner was appointed as
a Mukadam with the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran on 1 st February,
1988 and came to be promoted in due course as a Junior Clerk. He
superannuated on 31st May, 2022. By order dated 19th September, 2022,
while calculating the retirement benefits, the Pradhikaran has
deducted/withheld a sum of ₹2,00,000/- on the ground of incorrect pay-
scale being granted.
3. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 4298 of 2024, by order dated 23 rd
September, 2022, while calculating the retirement benefits, a sum of
₹4,71,239/- was deducted/withheld by the Pradhikaran.
4. In the third Writ Petition No.4300 of 2024, the Petitioner
superannuated on 31st July, 2022 and while calculating his retirement
benefits before his date of superannuation, by order dated 13 th July,
2022, a sum of ₹1,35,788/- came to be deducted/withheld from the
retirement benefits.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the
Petitioners are Class-III / Class-IV employees. He submits that the
amounts were withheld on the ground of incorrect pay scale granted
during the service tenure of the Petitioners, which is now sought to be
Jamadar-SL 2 of 5
22-WP-4026-2024(C).doc
recovered. He submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others v.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others1. He submits that in view
thereof, the impugned orders are clearly unsustainable and are liable to
be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Maharashtra Jeevan
Pradhikaran would support the impugned orders. He submits that as
incorrect pay scale was granted to the Petitioners, which came to the
notice of the Pradhikaran only at the time of calculation of the
retirement benefits, the excess amount was withheld from the amount
of gratuity. He submits that as the Petitioners were not entitled to the
said pay-scale which came to be granted inadvertently, the order has
been rightly passed of withholding the excess amount. He submits that
no interference is warranted as it is not demonstrated that a correct pay
scale was granted to the Petitioners.
7. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioners have
superannuated and from their retirement benefits, the excess amount
on account of an incorrect pay scale being granted during the service
tenure is now sought to be withheld by the Pradhikaran.
1 (2015) 4 SCC 334
Jamadar-SL 3 of 5
22-WP-4026-2024(C).doc
9. The issue is no longer res integra and is well settled by the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and
others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra). The Hon’ble
Apex Court laid down five factors while recovering the excess amount
paid by employer to employee during service tenure, which are
reproduced as under:
“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which
would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments
have mistakenly
been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it
may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a
ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law :
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and
Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service)
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment
has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the
order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been
required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been
paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been
required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion,
that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous
or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh
the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.”
10. As the Petitioners' case is squarely covered by the decision in the
case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
others (supra), the act of the Pradhikaran in recovering the excess
payment on the basis of an incorrect pay scale during the service tenure
of the Petitioners cannot be sustained. The Petitioners are entitled to
Jamadar-SL 4 of 5
22-WP-4026-2024(C).doc
refund of the amounts which have been deducted by the Pradhikaran
from the retirement benefits of the Petitioners.
11. Resultantly, the Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer Clauses
(I) (II) and (III).
12. The amounts to be refunded within a period of four weeks from
the date of this order.
13. The Petitions are allowed in the above terms.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Jamadar-SL 5 of 5
Checking your session…