DEVIDAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties fnally, with consent.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Tandale, appearing for the petitioner submits that by an order dated 04.01.1997 passed by Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad, Irrigation Circle, beneft of time bound promotional pay scale had been granted to the petitioner with efect from 01-01-1996 and accordingly respondent no.2 under its order dated 15-04-1997 had fxed the pay. Subsequently, in 2004 the pay fxation had been done in accordance with the Fifth Pay Commission giving efect to from 01-01-1996. The petitioner had also received beneft of higher pay scale in the meanwhile. However, while the petitioner retired on superannuation on 31-05-2013, a recovery of Rs.77,446/- from the pensionary benefts and gratuity had been directed vide order dated 18-04- 2013 referring to cancellation order dated 24-09-2012 of higher pay scale since an objection was raised by Pay Verifcation Unit, Aurangabad and pay scale of petitioner had been revised with efect from 01-05-1996. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had been working as a junior clerk in Class-III category, the recovery sought on the verge of superannuation from retiral / gratuity beneft is unsustainable. It is not that the petitioner was at fault in receiving the amount recovered with reference to order dated 24-09-2012.

(3.) He further submits that the impugned order dated 18-04-2013 had been passed without giving notice to him. He refers to decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafq Masih (White Washer),2015 AIR(SC) 969 and an order dated 05-12-2019 in Writ Petition 3205 of 2019 of this court.