S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed with following prayers:

"(a) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents no.2 to 5 to refund the amount of Rs.2,24,312/- which is recovered from the Petitioner within stipulated period and for that purpose issue necessary orders. (b) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the like nature, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.2 to 5 to grant leave encashment for 150 days to the petitioner and for that purpose issue necessary orders."

3. It is contended by the Petitioner that he had worked with Respondent No.5 on the post of Assistant Teacher and he came to be retired due to superannuation, on 28th February, 2013. At the time of preparation of pension proposal of the Petitioner, the authorities found that some amount is paid in excess to the Petitioner due to wrong pay fixation at the hands of the respondent authorities and therefore, the entry in respect of making recovery of Rs.1,46,034/- was taken in the service book of the Petitioner. It is further contended that Respondent No.5 thereafter issued a letter dated 23rd April, 2013 to the Accounts Officer, Aurangabad thereby stating that though the amount of recovery from the Petitioner is shown as Rs.1,46,034/-, it should be Rs.2,24,312/- and requested to replace the amount of recovery by Rs.2,24,312/-.

4. It is further contended by the Petitioner that though he had prayed for encashment of his 150 leaves but the Respondent authorities had granted leave encashment for only 79 leaves thereby stating that, no such leave encashment can be granted in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has referred to the Government Resolution dated 6th December, 1996 and submitted that in the said Resolution it is clearly provided that the provisions of leave encashment are also applicable to the persons working with the departments having long vacations. It is further submitted that by Government Resolution dated 15th January, 2001 the number of leaves which can be encashed, are extended to 300 days and therefore the Respondent authorities ought to have granted leave encashment for 150 leaves, which were at the credit of the Petitioner. Hence this Petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner referring to the averments in the Petition, submits that the pay of the Petitioner was fixed by the Respondent authorities and there was no mistake on the part of the Petitioner in the said alleged wrong pay fixation. It is submitted that Respondents have wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.2,24,312/- from the retirement dues of the Petitioner and it is prayed that the Respondents may be directed to repay the said amount to the Petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the exposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (2015 (4) S.C.C. 334) Learned counsel further submitted that though the Petitioner is entitled to get leave encashment for his 150 earned leaves, the Respondent authorities have granted leave encashment for only 79 days, which is contrary to the policy of the State Government. He therefore submits that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents, referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that while granting new pay-scale to the employees, the employees have to give undertaking as per Clause 15.6 of Government Circular bearing (Marathi) No.Vepura1209/ Pra.Kra.69/Seva-9 dated 29th April, 2009 that, if there would be any wrong fixation and if there would be any ex