Bombay High Court
VISHNU BANKAT KAMBLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The recovery order dated 15‑11‑2022 is quashed and the petition is allowed.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Class‑III employee, challenged a 2022 order directing recovery of Rs.1,86,654 from his retirement benefits for allegedly not having passed the mandatory MSCIT examination between 2008 and 2014. He had been granted an exemption from the exam in 2014 upon turning 50, and later actually passed the MSCIT in 2020, a fact the respondents failed to consider. The court examined whether a post‑superannuation recovery could be made against a Class‑III employee’s gratuity and other retirement benefits, citing Supreme Court precedents that prohibit such recovery. It held that the exemption order remained valid and that the recovery order was unlawful. Consequently, the order was quashed, the recovered amount (if any) was to be refunded with 6% interest, and any pending retirement benefits were to be paid with interest, except gratuity which carries 10% statutory interest.
Issues considered
- Whether a recovery of amounts from the retirement benefits of a Class‑III employee for failure to pass the MSCIT examination is permissible after superannuation.
- Whether the exemption granted in 2014 from the MSCIT requirement remains valid despite the petitioner later passing the exam.
- Whether the 2022 recovery order contravenes Supreme Court rulings on post‑retirement deductions.
Subjects
- MSCIT examination
- retirement benefits
- Class‑III employee
- post‑superannuation recovery
- exemption order
- interest on recovery
- gratuity
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9182-DB
615-26-WP.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.615 OF 2026
Vishnu Bankat Kamble
Age: 63, Occupation: Pensioner,
R/o. Saha Vaibhav Jatwada
Behind Harsool Jail,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Nagar Vikas Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)
3. TheMedical Health 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.
615-26-WP.odt
{2}
2. The present petition challenges the order dated 15.11.2022
passed by Respondent No. 2, 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 Multi-
Purpose Worker in the Health Department by order dated 11.03.1985.
He stood retired on 30.04.2022 upon attaining the age of
superannuation. The petitioner was granted exemption from passing the
MSCIT examination with effect from 02.04.2014, i.e., on completion of
50 years of age. However, after retirement, the petitioner was served
with office order dated 15.11.2022, stating that recovery of the amount
for the period from 01.01.2008 to 02.04.2014 was to be effected on the
ground that he had not passed the MSCIT examination, and further
stating that an excess amount of Rs. 1,86,654/- 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.
615-26-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 apears not to have
been taken note of, and therefore, entry of the same be 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
615-26-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 02.04.2014. The petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2022.
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 order dated 15.11.2022 passed by respondent
No.2, directing recovery stands 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%
615-26-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…