IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of estoppel applies when a party has executed an undertaking agreeing to recovery of excess payment, and the court may rely on established legal principles to support its decision.

JUDGMENT :

Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule Made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B) as under:

“(B) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or a direction in the like nature for quashing the recovery of Rs. 8,43,782/- from the amount of Gratuity and Pension as detailed in the Gratuity Payment Order dated 05.03.2021 at Exh. D and direct the respondents to make Gratuity Payment of Rs. 7 lakhs to the Petitioner.”

3. In short, the grievance of the Petitioner is that, he completed BAMS, M.D. (Ayurveda- Rasshastra). On 21-07-1997, he had joined Respondent No. 5 College as a Lecturer. He was promoted to the post of Professor on 01.07.2000 and superannuated on 30.06.2019 as he attained 60 years of age. However, after retirement, he was served with a notice dated 18.12.2020 issued by Respondent No. 5 thereby directed recovery of Rs. 8,43,782/- (Rs. 6,60,810/- on account of wrong pay fixation, allowances + Rs. 1,82,792/- towards other recovery).

4. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have contended that, as per GR dated 08.09.2011, the Petitioner was not entitled to receive benefit of three non compoundable increments. As per Clause 5 (i) of the said GR, an Assistant Professor/Lecturer is entitled for three increments. The Petitioner was appointed to the post of Reader at entry level. The Petitioner earlier had filed Writ Petition No. 1089 of 2020 thereby praying for finalisation of his pension and retiral benefits and to send his said proposal to the competent authority. On 11.01.2021, this court passed an order and directed respondent no. 3 to submit the said proposal within a period of two weeks and the Accountant General was directed to decide the same within a period of 4 weeks therefrom. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted the proposal to Respondent No. 3. Prior to the submitting of the proposal, the Petitioner executed an undertaking and agreed for recovery of amount from his pension benefits, if it is found that any excess amount is paid to him. Therefore, considering principle of estoppel, the petitioner is not entitled to seek writ of mandamus prohibiting the Respondent from recovery of excess payment due to wrong pay fixation and other allowances, hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Mr. Narwade, the learned AGP, canvassed that, the Petitioner was appointed directly to the post of Reader on 22.07.1997. He was granted three non compoundable increments, though he was not entitled. The communication dated 27.02.2018 clarifies that three non compounded increments are admissible only to the Assistant Professors appointed prior to 01.01.2006. Therefore, Respondent No. 3 re-fixed pay admissible to the Petitioner and corrected the mistake by reducing three non compounded increments. The Petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2019. However, no recovery was effected against the petitioner. Therefore, vide communication dated 18.12.2020, the Petitioner was directed to deposit excess amount received by him to the tune of Rs. 7,60,790/-. In support of this submissions he relied on the case of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267.

6. It is an undisputed fact that, the Petitioner qualified BAMS, M.D. (Ayurveda- Rasshastra). On 21-07-1997, the Petitioner was appointed as a Reader/Assistant Professor with Respondent No. 5 College and promoted to the post of Professor on 01.07.2000. It is also not in dispute that, the petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. But respondents were not deciding his proposal of retiral benefits. Therefore, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1089 of 2020 before this Court. On 11.01.2021, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court (Coram: S.V. Gangapurwala and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.) passed the following order:

“1. We have heard Mr. Shelke, the learned Counsel for the petitio