WP/6396/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6396 OF 2010 Shankar Motiram Patil, Age 60 years, Occ. Pensioner R/o Plot No.35, Sant Gadgebaba Nagar, Pachora, Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon. ..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 3. The Eduction Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 4. The Accounts Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 5. The Block Eduction Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Jamner, District Jalgaon. .. Respondents ... Shri S. V. Chandole, Advocate h/f Shri V. G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri N. B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 to 5. ... CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated : June 16, 2011 WP/6396/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 6.3.2009 passed by the respondent No. 3 herein, thereby directing to deduct an amount of 1,56,699/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, initially was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri on 13.10.1972. The petitioner was appointed as a trained Graduate Teacher after completing his graduation, vide order dated 28.1.1985. In the year 1991 the petitioner came to be transferred to Jalgaon district as a Graduate Teacher and since then he worked in that capacity with Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. Petitioner was granted senior Pay Scale, after completion of twelve years of service in the year 1997. 4. The petitioner was due for retirement on 31.3.2008 and as such the verification of his service record for making pensionary benefits applicable to him was undertaken by the respondent No. 2 - Zilla Parishad. In the said exercise the basic pay of the petitioner which was at 9,100/- was brought down to 8,300/- . WP/6396/2010 3 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents No. 2 to 5 have filed their affidavit in reply. It is stated that, though the petitioner had acquired B.A. degree prior to granting him trained graduate teachers pay, he had not completed B. Ed. within a period of five years and as such his pay scale has rightly been reduced. However, from the perusal of Government Resolution dated 13.5.1999 (Exhibit "G"), it is clear that if a candidate who has been granted trained graduate teacher's scale does not acquire B.Ed. qualification within a prescribed period, he is not entitled to further increments till he completes the graduation. The said Government Resolution does not provide for reduction in the pay scale. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has, in fact, completed his B.Ed. In that view of the matter, we find that, the action of the respondents in reducing the pay scale, that too at fag end of petitioners service career, is not permissible in law. It is further settled law that, all recoveries on account of erroneous fixation of pay not attributed to an employee are not permissible in law. The petition would also have to be allowed on another ground of not following the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. In the result, we hold that the action of respondents in reducing the pay of petitioner from 9,100/- to 8,300/- was not permissible in law. Consequently, any recovery made from the petitioner will have to be set aside. If the amount is already recovered, same shall be repaid to WP/6396/2010 4 the petitioner within a period of three months from today. Needless to state that, the pension would be paid to the petitioner by treating his basic pay at Rs. 9,100/- on the date of his retirement. 7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) ... akl