The recovery of overpayment can only be interfered with in cases where it would result in a hardship that far outweighs the employer's right to recover.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Jawalkar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.06.2019 by which the Regional Transport Office, Nagpur has sought to recover an amount of Rs.57,493/- towards over payment made. The petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 10.08.2021 by which it has been informed that interest under Rule 129(B) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, the said Rules) cannot be paid on the amount of Rs.1,32,005/-.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 08.02.1965 the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Office of respondent No.3 who is under direct control of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. From the date of appointment till his retirement the petitioner was never communicated any adverse remarks nor was subjected to departmental enquiry at any point of time. On the other hand, Ku. K.B. Petkar, who was similarly situated employee as that of petitioner got a deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 05.09.1980 by Office Order dated 01.11.2000. One Mr. Umathe was also promoted w.e.f. 05.09.1980. Both these employees namely Ku. Petkar and Mr. Umathe were admittedly junior to the petitioner. On 01.11.2000, the petitioner came to know about such an injustice therefore he had made various representations enclosing the seniority list and demanded deemed date promotion from 05.09.1980 but in vain. again, the petitioner and other employees made representation to the authorities time and again and a Departmental Committee's Meeting was held on 08.06.2009, which recommended promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.07.1989. The petitioner was however not promoted as Senior Clerk and was demanding deemed date promotion from 05.09.1980 along with arrears of pensionary benefits and other allied consequential benefits.

4. On 18.11.2010, the petitioner has approached the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal, Nagpur by filing Original application No. 438/2010 and prayed for a relief of the deemed date promotion w.e.f. 05.09.1980. The said application was decided along with other Original applications on 04.01.2018. The respondents were directed to grant deemed date of promotion to the petitioner as Senior Clerk w.e.f. 05.09.1980 with all other monetary and consequential benefits within a period of four months. Thereafter, the petitioner and other 10 employees were granted deemed date of promotion vide order dated 24.07.2018. The said Office Order dated 24.07.2018 was admittedly after 6 months and in breach of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Maharashtra administrative Tribunal, Nagpur. On 05.01.2019, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.1,32,005/- but the petitioner did not get any interest on the arrears of his pensionary benefits. The respondents have failed to give interest on arrears. as per Rule 129(B) of the said Rules, the petitioner was entitled to get 10% interest from which date the arrears accrued i.e. 05.09.1980. On 13.06.2019, the respondent No.3 illegally issued recovery notice to the petitioner directing the recovery of Rs.57,493/-. The respondents have alleged that excess payment has been made to the petitioner and therefore recovery is necessitated. according to the State Government Notification dated 26.02.2019, it is directed by the State Government that if on account of erroneous calculations excess payment is made to the retired Class-III and Class-IV employees such amount should not be recovered. The petitioner made representation to respondent No.3 on 15.07.2019 and requested not to effect recovery from him.

5. The petitioner, aggrieved by the action of the respondents, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3358/2020. In the said petition, this Court vide order dated 15.01.2021, directed the respondent No.2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner within six weeks.

6. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 182/2021 for deliberate non compliance of t