MANOHAR BAPPAJI GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has put forth prayer clause B and C as under:-

(3.) The petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk with the Civil Court at Kallam, Dist.Osmanabad. On 21/11/2006, he received an advance increment on account of excellent work in pursuance to the minutes of the meeting dtd. 18/10/2006 conducted by the Advisory Committee recommending candidates for such advance increments. The petitioner superannuated on 31/10/2021 and his pension papers were forwarded. Respondent No.5 raised an objection on 9/7/2021 concluding that such advance increment was wrongly granted due to the applicability of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations from 1/1/2016. Consequentially, the learned Civil Judge, J.D. passed the impugned order dtd. 27/10/2021, directing recovery of Rs.67,918.00 and the same has been recovered.