Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired teacher, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an order dated 08.06.2007 that directed recovery of excess payment from his pension. The petitioner was appointed in 1971, re-appointed in 1972, and retired in 2005. Objections were raised post-retirement about his pay scale due to appointment after 30.09.1970 and lack of B.Ed. qualification. The High Court, citing Supreme Court judgments in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih and Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, held that recovery from pension is not permissible and erroneous pay fixation without employee fault should not be recovered. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to release the petitioner's pensionary benefits within three months.
Headnote
The petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged an order dated 08.06.2007 by respondent No.1 directing recovery of excess payment made during his service -- The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1971, re-appointed in 1972, and retired on 30.11.2005 -- Objections were raised regarding his pay scale based on appointment date after 30.09.1970 and lack of B.Ed. qualification -- The High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considered Supreme Court precedents -- Held that recovery from pension is impermissible as per State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, and erroneous pay fixation without employee fault should not be recovered as per Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India -- The impugned order was quashed, and respondents were directed to release pensionary benefits -- Para 2, Para 7, Para 8, Para 10
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of recovery of excess payment from pension of a retired employee
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court Partly allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 08.06.2007, and directed respondents to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner within three months
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 100
Writ Petition No.4963 of 2007
Kishore C. Sant J. , Sushil M. Ghodeswar J.
Shri Mayur Salunke h/f Shri V.D. Salunke, Shri Suhas B. Ghute
Shridhar S/o. Baburao Gambhire
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Head Master Zilla Parishad Primary School, Itkur, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging recovery order
Remedy Sought
Petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside order dated 08.06.2007 and release of pensionary benefits
Filing Reason
Recovery directed from pension based on alleged excess payment during service
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.3450/2006 allowed on 10.10.2006, matter remanded for fresh enquiry
Issues
Whether recovery of excess payment from pension of a retired employee is permissible under law
Whether erroneous pay fixation without employee fault can be recovered
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued recovery from pension is contrary to Supreme Court guidelines in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih
Petitioner contended erroneous pay fixation should not be recovered as per Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India
Respondents argued petitioner not eligible for pay scale due to lack of B.Ed. qualification as per Government Resolution dated 14.11.1979
Ratio Decidendi
Recovery from pension of retired employees is impermissible as per Supreme Court guidelines, and erroneous pay fixation without employee fault should not be recovered
Judgment Excerpts
Held that recovery from pension is contrary to well settled guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
Held that if the higher pay scale was erroneously given to the employee for which he was not at fault, then it shall not be proper to recover any excess amount already paid to such employee as per Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India
Procedural History
Petition filed under Article 226 on 29.08.2007 with interim relief granted -- Rule issued on 01.10.2008 -- Previous Writ Petition No.3450/2006 allowed on 10.10.2006 and remanded -- Impugned order passed on 08.06.2007 -- Judgment reserved on 04.02.2026 and pronounced on 17.02.2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
