##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AS:57496-DB

WP-6446-2024-J.doc

Shephali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 6446 OF 2024

Prakash Shivram Salvi,

Age- 60 years, Occ.-Retired,

R/o.B-1706, Lotus Building,

Gawand Bagh, Near Upwan Lake,

Pokhran Road, No. 2, Thane West 400 610 …Petitioner

SHEPHALI ~ versus ~

SANJAY

MORMARE

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Digitally signed by Through its Additional Chief Secretary,

SHEPHALI

SANJAY Home Department, Mantralaya,

MORMARE

Date: 2025.12.24 Mumbai.

18:17:04 +0530

2. The Director General of Police,

S.B.S. Marg, Colaba, Mumbai.

3. Principal Accountant General (A and E),

101, Maharshi Karve Road,

Pratishtha Bhavan, 2^nd Floor,

Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020.

4. Director of Accountants and Treasuries,

Thakarshi House, 3^rd Floor, Shoorji

Vallabha’s Marg, Near Foreign Post,

Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 001.

5. Additional Director General of Police,

Protection of Civil Rights Floor,

Old Custom House, Mumbai 400 001. …Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner Ms Sonali Pawar, with Mr Sandeep

Dere.

Page 1 of 13

24^th December 2025

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 18:38:37 :::

WP-6446-2024-J.doc

For Respondents-State Mr NC Walimbe, Addl. GP, with

Mr RM Shinde, AGP.

CORAM SUMAN SHYAM &

S. M. MODAK, JJ

RESERVED ON 10TH NOVEMBER 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON 24TH DECEMBER 2025.

JUDGMENT ( P er Suman Shyam, J) :-

1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Judgment and

Order dated 14^th March 2024 passed by the learned Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal (“MAT”) in Original Application No. 1278

of 2022, rejecting the prayer made by the original Applicant/Writ

Petitioner for setting aside the order dated 31^st December 2021 for

recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,05,690/- from his retirement dues

as excess payment. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as

hereunder:-

2. The Writ Petitioner was originally appointed as a Sub-

Inspector of Police on 2^nd July 1989. After rendering service for

nearly 32 years, he had retired as Superintendent of Police on

attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31^st May

2021. After the retirement of the Petitioner, while his pension

Page 2 of 13

24^th December 2025

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 18:38:37 :::

WP-6446-2024-J.doc

papers were under process, there was an audit objection raised by

the Pay Verification Unit (“PVU”) when his Service Book was sent

for verification. On 31^st December 2021, the Respondent No 5, i.e.,

The Additional Director General of Police had issued order dated

31^st December 2021 and Corrigendum dated 14^th September 2022

re-fixing the pay of the Applicant with effect from 8^th February

2001, thus contending that an amount of Rs. 3,05,690/- was

recoverable from the Petitioner on account of excess payment.

Upon his retirement, a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- was due and payable

to the Petitioner by the Department on account of Death-Cum-

Retirement Gratuity (“DCRG”). As such initially the Petitioner had

stated that the amount be recovered from his DCRG. However, on

the same day he wrote to the Respondents informing them that the

amount should not be recovered in view of the Judgment and

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of

State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer).1

3. The Account Officer had taken a stand before the learned

MAT that the Applicant had given an undertaking, as per Rule 6(2)

(3), as laid down in Notification dated 30^th January 2019 issued by

1

2015 (4) SCC 334 : AIR 2015 S 696 : 2015 AIR SCW 501.

Page 3 of 13

24^th December 2025

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 18:38:37 :::

WP-6446-2024-J.doc

the Finance Department agreeing for recovery of over payment,

which can be adjusted from the amounts found due to him.

Therefore, the Writ Petitioner/Original Applicant cannot now raise

objection to such recovery process.

4. After taking note of the projections made by the learned

counsel for both sides and on consideration of Rule 134-A of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)