1 WP1744.20 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO. 1744 OF 2010 Hasumati Manharlal Desai ... Petitioner v/s 1. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, 2. Education Officer (Primary), BMC 3. Dy. Education Officer (Primary), BMC 4. Administrative Officer (Schools), BMC 5. The Pension Commissioner, BMC. ... Respondents Ms.Prachi Khandke i/by M.P.Vashi & Associates for the petitioner. Ms.S.M.Modle for respondents. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by the Administrative Officer. 2. There is no doubt that the petitioner retired on 31.5.1998 as an Assistant Teacher and she became entitled 2 WP1744.20 for the pensionary benefits from 1.6.1998. She was drawing the pension but by the impugned order the recovery of Rs. 1,32,973/- came to be ordered from the pension amount on the ground that it was paid in excess. The said amount has been recovered and, therefore, this petition. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had passed D.Ed. on 14.7.1981 and thus she became eligible for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school. However, she was shown to have been appointed with effect from 28.6.1973 when she was not qualified as an Assistant Teacher and thus her service from 28.6.1973 to 14.7.1981 was not required to be taken into consideration for the pensionary benefits. The school did not maintain the record properly and therefore her pension was calculated on the basis that she joined on 28.6.1973 as Trainee Assistant Teacher in a primary school. This mistake was noticed in the year 2008 by the Accounts Section and, therefore, the impugned letter dated 8.12.2008 was issued to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery is being made after 10 years on her retirement and without giving her any opportunity. However, on the face of the record and the fact that the petitioner completed her 3 WP1744.20 D.Ed. on 14.7.1981, the recovery made cannot be said to be illegal or unjust. The money which was not due to the petitioner has been recovered and the recovery is towards the excess amount paid by way of pension. It also appears that the petitioner had given the consent letter for the excess amount recovery. Thus the petition fails. 5. Petition stands dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 4 WP1744.20