Bombay High Court
LATA PANDHARINATH TORNE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Recovery of excess payment from the petitioners' retirement benefits is illegal and unsustainable under Supreme Court guidelines concerning Class III/retired employees and delayed recovery.
Summary
The petitioners challenged recoveries of excess salary amounts made by the Zilla Parishad, arguing they were never shown cause nor required to execute any undertaking. Although the petitioners had executed undertakings in 1999 to refund any excess payments, the recoveries were effected more than twenty years later from their retirement benefits. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents that bar recovery from Class III/retired employees, especially when the excess payment was made over five years before the recovery order or where such recovery would be iniquitous. Applying those principles, the Court held that the deductions from the petitioners' retirement benefits were illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, directing the respondent to repay the amounts within 90 days, with interest applicable thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether an employer can recover excess salary from retired Class III employees after a delay of more than five years despite prior undertakings.
- Whether the undertakings executed by the employees bind the employer to recover the excess from retirement benefits.
- Applicability of Supreme Court guidelines on iniquitous or harsh recovery from employees.
Subjects
- excess payment
- salary recovery
- retirement benefits
- undertakings
- class III service
- Supreme Court guidelines
- iniquitous recovery
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:32572-DB
1 77 wp 8935.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8935 OF 2023
Lata Pandharinath Torne and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Jayant S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri S. R. Wakle, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri Avinash D. Aghav, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 27TH JULY, 2026.
PER COURT :
. The issue raised in this petition is with regard to alleged
excess payment. The Zilla Parishad has already recovered an
amount of Rs. 4,67,728/- from the petitioner No. 1 – Lata Torne,
Rs. 3,91,662/- from the petitioner No. 2 -Shakuntala Dighe, Rs.
3,66,541/- from the petitioner No. 3 – Shakuntala Jagtap, Rs.
6,38,746/- from the petitioner No. 4 – Jubeda Pathan and Rs.
2,95,048/- from petitioner No. 5 – Lata Karle.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that, neither were
they called upon to execute any undertaking nor were issued
with any show cause notice.
3. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4
2 77 wp 8935.23
vehemently opposes the petition relying on affidavit in reply filed
by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. He has pointed out the
undertakings executed by the petitioners stating that if any
excess payment is found to be made as a result of incorrect
fixation of pay or excess payment deducted in the light of
description notices, subsequently will be refunded by them to the
Government either by adjustment against future payments due
to them or otherwise. Learned advocate rely upon the judgment
delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh”, 2016 AIR (SCW) 3523.
4. Though an undertaking was executed by the petitioners on
09th February, 1999, admittedly the recoveries are made from the
retiral benefits of the petitioners after a period of more than
twenty (20) years. In that view of the matter, we do not agree
with the submissions of the learned advocate for the respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 that since the petitioners have given undertakings,
the respondents are justified in recovering the amount from the
retiral benefits. The respondents would have been justified to
recover the amount soon after the undertakings were executed.
For the inordinate delay caused by the respondents in recovering
the said amount on the basis of undertakings executed more than
twenty years earlier cannot be said to be just, legal and proper.
5. Apart from the above, the issue involved in this petition is
squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matters of “Syed Abdul Qadir V/s State of Bihar ” 2009 (3) SCC
3 77 wp 8935.23
475 and “State of Punjab and Others V/s Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
Others” 2014 (4) SCC 334.
6. Admittedly, there is no allegation against the petitioners
that they have played a fraud on the employer or have
orchestrated or manipulated the re-pay fixation so as to gain
undue advantage. There is no allegations of any involvement of
the Petitioners in the pay fixation.
7. As such, the petitioners were not in any way instrumental
or involved in the process of wrongful fixation of pay. The only
issue is as regards the undertakings executed by the Petitioners,
by which they had assured the employer that they would refund
if excess payment is found to be made to them or be adjusted
against their future payments.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 12 in
“High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh ” (supra),
as under:-
“12. In State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) etc. this Court held that while it is not possible to
postulate all situations of hardship where payments have
mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following
situations, a recovery by the employer would be
impermissible in law:-
“(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-
III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D'
service).
4 77 wp 8935.23
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of
recovery.
(iii) Recovery from 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.” (emphasis
supplied).”
9. The petitioners’ case is squarely covered under clause (i),
(ii), (iii) and (v). The petitioners were working in class III
category. The recovery is initiated after their retirement. The
recovery is made when the payment made to the petitioners was
in excess of five years prior to the order of recovery. After
retirement, recovering an amount would be harsh and iniquitous.
No doubt, the undertakings executed by the petitioners would
normally bind them to repay the excess amount from future
payments. However, they were paid such excess amounts from
01.10.1996 to 31.05.2020, 15.02.1997 to 31.08.2019, 09.07.1996 to
28.02.2017 and 01.07.1996 to 31.12.2022, which is a period of
more than 20 years. This fact situation would be covered by
5 77 wp 8935.23
clause (iii) in paragraph 12 of the “ High Court of Punjab and Haryana
and others vs. Jagdev Singh” (supra).
10. In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed. The
deduction of amount from the retiral benefits of the Petitioners is
held to be illegal and unsustainable. Respondent No. 2 shall
repay the said amount to the Petitioners within 90 days. As the
recovery was made in the light of the undertakings executed by
the petitioners, bona fide by the employer, we are not granting
interest to the Petitioners. However, if the amount is not paid in
90 days, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 5% p.a. after
90 days.
[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
bsb/July 26
Checking your session…