The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on fraudulent behavior and mischievous conduct in the context of recovery of excess salary, highlighting the petitioner's involvement in the manipulation of his pay scale, failure to challenge the corrected pay scale order, and refusal to refund the excess amount despite multiple directives.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clauses B and C as under :-

"(B) By issuing writ of certiorari and or order in like nature impugned order dated 31.01.2017 bearing Mo.4092-2017 issued by the respondent No.2 thereby revising pay of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(C) By issuing writ of mandamus respondents be directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,46,931/- (three lacs forty six thousand nine hundred thirty one only) along with interest to the petitioner within stipulated period."

3. The petitioner has preferred this petition on 09.04.2018 for challenging the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 by which, an amount of Rs.3,46,931/- along with interest, is sought to be recovered from him..

4. The contentions of the petitioner can be summarized as under :-

(a) The petitioner had no role to play in the fixation of his pay scale as per the 5th and 6th Pay Commission's recommendations.

(b) The Block Development Officer was the person, who prepared the fixation of pay scales.

(c) The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 08.11.1983 and he superannuated from service on 31.08.2017.

(d) He was the Junior Administrative Officer (Superintendent) on the date of his superannuation.

(e) On 05.10.2013, the Block Development Officer noticed discrepancy in the pay scale structuring of the petitioner and brought it to the notice of the Zilla Parishad that the petitioner is being paid excess salary since 01.04.2010 till 31.08.2013.

(f) Reasons are not stated as to why the Zilla Parishad did not act on the communication issued by the Block Development Officer.

(g) Seven months prior to his retirement, the impugned notice directing refund of excess amounts paid to him, was issued.

(h) The said amount has been recovered from the petitioner from his retiral benefits as the said amount was not refunded by the petitioner over a period of seven months prior to his retirement.

(i) The petitioner is not at fault and he has not played any fraud.

(j) The judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, is relied upon in support of the claim that no recovery can be made from the petitioner after his retirement.

(k) The petitioner has obtained a certificate from the succeeding Block Development Officer on 29.08.2018 by way of a declaration indicating that one Shri G.S.Margamwar, Senior Assistant Establishment-1, was working in the Panchayat Samiti, Mahur from January, 2011 till the date of issuance of the certificate.

5. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3/ Zilla Parishad relies upon the affidavit in reply filed on 30.07.2018 by the Block Development Officer on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is narrated that the petitioner was promoted and posted at Panchayat Samiti, Mahur as the Superintendent w.e.f. 02.01.2010. Before his promotion, his pay scale was Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.2400 as on 01.01.2010. His salary as on 01.01.2020 was Rs.8700/-. His pay scale for the post of the Superintendent was Rs.9300-34800. It is further submitted that after making proper pay fixation, the petitioner was entitled to receive the payment of Rs.13500/-. As against this, he wrongly received payment as per the pay scale of Rs.10950+330+4200=15480/- on 02.01.2010, pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2011.

6. It is then submitted in the affidavit that the petitioner was working as the Superintendent at Panchayat Samiti, Mahur and he manipulated his fixation (wrong) of pay scale by mentioning his scale as 10950+330+4200 instead of the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200. He himself was involved in the process of fixation of his pay scale. His signature appeared on the file of the pay fixation and by adding more amounts, he inflated his pay scale. In his capacity of being a Superintenden