2025:BHC-AUG:24996-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 8355 OF 2025

Smt. Jayashri Wd/o Sunil Kolhe, Age: 52 years, Occu.: Household, R/o: Plot No. 50, Survey No. 53,

Juna Khedi Road,

Near Vishweshwar Mahadev Temple,

Jamuna Nagar, Jalgaon,

Tq. and District Jalgaon. ... PETITIONER

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through its Secretary,

Higher and Technical Education

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2. The Accountant General,

101, Maharshi Karve Road,

Maharashtra, Mumbai-400 020.

3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,

Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

4. The Accountant,

Office of the Joint Director of

Higher Education, Jalgaon Division,

Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

5. Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhari North

Maharashtra University,

UMAVI Nagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon

Through its Registrar. ... RESPONDENTS

…....

Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for the Respondent-State Mr. Sandesh R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.5 (through VC)

…....

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 11^th September, 2025 JUDGMENT (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, it is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. In the case in hand, a very short question falling for our consideration is that, whether the employer can recover the amount paid in excess to the deceased employee from his legal heirs i.e. the Petitioner the widow of the employee. On face of record it appears that, Shri Sunil Kolhe, the deceased husband of the Petitioner was working as “Assistant” with the establishment of Respondent No.5 University w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The husband of the Petitioner expired on 02.10.2022. Thereafter, the Petitioner had requested the Respondents to release all monetary and pensionary benefits arising out of service of her deceased husband. However, the Petitioner was asked to obtain heirship certificate, which was obtained by the petitioner on 12.06.2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Respondents with the request to process family pension and other monetary benefits accumulated to the service of her husband. Accordingly, the Respondent No.5 submitted the proposal for releasing the family pension. However, on 20.09.2024 the Respondent No.3/ Joint Director of Higher Education issued impugned certificate, certifying that excess payment to the tune of Rs.14,96,836/- (Rs.8,79,172/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015 and Rs.6,17,664/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 02.10.2022) was made to the Petitioner’s deceased husband. Thereafter, on 03.01.2025, the Respondent No.5 submitted the proposal of family pension with the Respondent No.2. However, the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have neither paid family pension nor any monetary benefits to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner submitted representations on 27.02.2025 and 03.04.2025, thereby requesting for release of pensionary and other monetary benefits accumulated due to service of the Petitioner’s husband. Thereafter, on 29.04.2025, the Respondent No.2 sanctioned family pension in favour of the Petitioner but amount of Rs. 14,96,836/- was directed to be recovered from the monetary benefits.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner canvassed that, the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have directed to effect recovery from the monetary and pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner after sad demise of the Petitioner’s husband and as such no undertaking was obtained from the Petitioner’s husband while fixing the pay at the time of implementing 6^th and 7^th Pay Commission. The husband of the Petitioner was discharging duty being a Class-3 employee, therefore, alleged excess payment made to the deceased husband of the Petitioner cannot be recovered from the monetary and pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner on account of death of her husband.

4. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on the cases of State of Punja