2025:BHC-AUG:28352-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2754 OF 2019 Dattatraya s/o Kalu Patil Age-58 years, Ocu-Retire., R/o-Anupam Society, Plot No. 25, Gat No. 2/1, in front of Dadawadi, Jalgaon Tq. Jalgaon Dist-Jalgaon. ..Petitioner VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department Mantralaya Mumbai - 32.

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Circle, Nashik Division Nashik.

3. The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, At Jalgaon, Through Chief Officer. 4. The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Through its Deputy Chief Executive Officer at Jalgaon.

5. The Chief Account and Finance Officer Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon.

6. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Erandol, Tq. Erandol Dist-Jalgaon ..Respondents ...

Ms. Deepali Nikalje h/f Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ms. R.P. Gaur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.

Mr. M.S. Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 6.

...

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : OCTOBER 01, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)

. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :

A) Rule be issued.

B) Record and proceedings of this case be called for.

C) By appropriate writ order or direction, order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 Deputy Chief Executive Officer (General Administration) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon thereby recovering the amount of Rs.1,35,513/- from the pension of the petitioner towards excess payment may kindly be quashed and set aside.

D) By appropriate writ order or direction the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.5 Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Erandol may kindly be quashed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification, the respondent no.5 appointed the petitioner as Extension Officer Statistics by appointment order dated 19.10.1994. It is further contended by the petitioner that after having found that the petitioner is eligible for grant of higher pay scale, the respondent no.5 has awarded higher pay scale and increments to the petitioner as per the government policy.

3. It is also the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner was due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 31.05.2018, the respondent no.5 has forwarded the proposal for grant of pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner to respondent no.3 on 29.11.2007. Respondent no.6, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Erandol, however, issued an order dated 15.01.2018 thereby carrying out the revised pay fixation of the pay scale of the petitioner and on that basis held that the petitioner has been paid Rs.1,35,518/- in excess under wrong pay fixation. It is further contended by the petitioner that as stated earlier while the proposal for grant of pensionary benefits was submitted on 29.11.2017 i.e. before six months of the retirement of the petitioner, the said pay fixation was carried out and resultantly by an impugned order dated 11.06.2018, respondent no.4/Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon recovered the said amount of Rs.1,35,518/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayers.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of respondent no.6 in carrying out the revised pay fixation by impugned order dated 15.01.2018 and directing recovery of Rs.1,35,518/- towards alleged excess payment and the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by respondent no.4/Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon thereby recovering an amount of Rs.1,35,518/- towards alleged excess payment made to the petitioner on the basis of revised pay