PRABHAKAR LOTU TAYADE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the averments made in the petition as well as subsequent events narrated in Civil Application No. 9043 of 2016, submits that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Projectionist on 31.05.2013. Except the provisional pension and provident fund, other retiral benefits were not given to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition came to be filed for grant of retiral benefits. In the meanwhile, respondent nos.2 and 3 determined the amounts of the gratuity, commutation of pension and difference of regular pension as well as provisional pension of the petitioner. His regular pension was fixed at Rs.10545/ - per month with effect from 01.06.2013. The gratuity amount was quantified at Rs.3,42,712/ -. The commutation of pension was determined at Rs.4,23,706/ -. Thus, the total amount of Rs.7,66,418/ - was found to be due and payable to the petitioner. It was informed by respondent nos.2 and 3 vide letter dated 11.01.2016 that excess amount of Rs.7,40,279/ - was paid to the petitioner because of wrong fixation of his pay. The said amount was recovered from the amount due and payable to the petitioner on 06.05.2016. The amount of Rs.2,74,375/ - came to be paid to the petitioner towards difference of regular pension and provisional pension. However, the amount of leave encashment due and payable to the petitioner, has not been paid to him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent nos.2 and 3 were not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.7,40,279/ - from the amount due and payable to the petitioner, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, due to wrong fixation of pay after his retirement in view of the judgment in the case of Ramesh s/o Channapa Kompalli Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2016(1) Mh.L.J. 389. He submits that the said amount is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. He further submits that the direction may be given to respondent nos.2 and 3 to refund the said amount as well as to pay the amount of leave encashment to the petitioner.