- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2395/2009 Sunil Budha Solanki, age 47 yrs., occu.service, r/o Mohadi Upnagar, Dhule. Dist.Dhule. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. Through its Chief Executive Officer. 3. The Accounts Officer (II), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 4. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Parola. Tq.Parola Dist.Jalgaon. ...Respondents... ..... Shri A.D. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri S.W. Mundhe, Advocate h/f Shri B.S. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 14.08.2009 - 2 - ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.) : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent nos.2 to 4 in deducting an amount of Rs.2400/- per month from the salary of the petitioner towards the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent nos.2 to 4. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondent nos.2 to 4 not to recover an amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- from the salary of the petitioner. 4] The petitioner, it appears, came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 16.5.1995. Presently, the petitioner is working as a Primary Teacher with the Zilla Parishad Primary School, Karadi Tq.Parola Dist.Jalgaon. The petitioner claims to have passed the examination of Hindu Sahitya Sudhakar in the year 1989 from the Bombay Hindi University. It appears that on account of the aforesaid qualification, the petitioner was being paid the pay-scale of a trained graduate teacher on the strength of having passed the said B.Ed. Examination from the Bombay Hindi University. The respondents, therefore, have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not passed his B.Ed. Examination within the time, which was stipulated and also that the B.Ed. Degree / diploma conferred by the Bombay Hindi University is not equivalent to the degree / diploma recognised by the State of Maharashtra. On the aforesaid two points, therefore, the respondents have sought to recover an amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- as an excess salary paid to the petitioner from the period 16.5.1995 till January, 2009. - 3 - 5] Shri A.D. Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that an amount of Rs.2400/- per month has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner till today. It is also stated before us at the Bar that the petitioner is being paid the reduced salary i.e. salary of an untrained graduate teacher. 6] Our attention has been invited to the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.6832/2007 dated 4.8.2008 by which the Division Bench had directed the respondents not to effect any recovery of the salary wrongly paid to the petitioner therein on the ground that the petitioner was not guilty of either suppression or of having practised fraud on the respondents. Similar is the fact situation in the present case. 7] In the light of the aforesaid judgment, we are inclined to allow this petition and we quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondents seeking to recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner. We, however, direct that the amount, which is already recovered should not be refunded to the petitioner, but recovery henceforth is being quashed. The petitioner to be paid the salary as per his entitlement. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c1480924