SUNANDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 30/3/2019 by which the Regional Transport Office, Nagpur has sought to recover an amount of Rs.51,535.00 towards over payment made. The petitioner has also challenged the communication dtd. 11/8/2021 by which it has been informed that interest under Rule 129(B) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, the said Rules) cannot be paid on the amount of Rs.1,96,101.00.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that on 1/11/1966 the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Office of respondent No.3 who is under direct control of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. From the date of appointment till her retirement the petitioner was never communicated any adverse remarks nor was subjected to departmental enquiry at any point of time. On the other hand, Ku. K.B. Petkar, who was similarly situated employee as that of petitioner got a deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 5/9/1980 by Office Order dtd. 1/11/2000. One Mr. Umathe was also promoted w.e.f. 5/9/1980. Both these employees namely Ku. Petkar and Mr. Umathe were admittedly junior to the petitioner. On 1/11/2000, the petitioner came to know about such an injustice therefore she had made various representations enclosing the seniority list and demanded deemed date promotion from 5/9/1980 but in vain. Again, the petitioner and other employees made representation to the Authorities time and again and a Departmental Committee 's Meeting was held on 8/6/2009, which recommended promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 31/7/1989. The petitioner was however not promoted as Senior Clerk and was demanding deemed date promotion from 5/9/1980 along with arrears of pensionary benefits and other allied consequential benefits.