IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.15847 OF 2023 Abdul Hamid Latif Shaikh, ] R/o. Kalamboli ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through the Government Pleader ] 2. Director General of Police, ] Maharashtra State ] 3. Inspector General of Police (Administration), ] Director General of Police, Mumbai ] 4. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai ] 5. Principal Accountant General (A & E), ] Mumbai ] .. Respondents Mr. G.B. Naik, i/by Mr. Imtiyaz Patel, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Rupali Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY 2026. PER GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. 1. The Petitioner who was employed in the Maharashtra Police, retired on 9th September 2015 as a Class-III employee, holding a post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. On 31st August 2015, a few weeks prior to his retirement, Respondent no. 4 directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,04,603/- on the ground that the same had been paid in excess of his entitlement. As the Petitioner was on due to retire on 9th September 2015, he deposited the 1/4 15-WP-15847-2023.doc Dixit said amount with the State Treasury. The present Petition has been filed seeking refund of the aforesaid sum, on the ground that the recovery was illegal and unjustified. 2. Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Sixth Pay Commission was implemented with effect from 1st January 2006, pursuant to which the pay scale of the Police Head Constable was revised from Rs.9,300/- to Rs.9,680/-. He contended that at the time of such revision and fixation of pay, the Petitioner was neither informed that the fixation was provisional nor that it was subject to any conditions. The Petitioner continued to receive salary as per the revised pay scale after due verification by the Respondents. Thus the Petitioner cannot be penalized and reliance was placed on the several orders of this Court in similar situations including order dated 12th February 2018 in Writ Petition No.695 of 2016 and order dated 18th July 2017 in Writ Petition No.5367 of 2016, as well as on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein recoveries is held to be impermissible and refund was directed. 3. Ms. Shinde, the learned AGP Government Pleader opposed the petition and submitted that the recovery was effected on account of incorrect pay fixation and that the Respondents were within their rights to recover the excess amount paid to the Petitioner. 2/4 15-WP-15847-2023.doc Dixit 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. The Petitioner, being a Class-III employee, had no role in determining or verifying the correctness of his pay fixation and had legitimately arranged his affairs on the basis of the salary paid to him over the years. It is also not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner had misrepresented any facts. The excess payment, if any, was the result of a decision attributable solely to the Respondents. It is also significant that the recovery was directed and effected just days prior to the Petitioner’s retirement. In such circumstances, directing recovery on the verge of retirement results in undue hardship and would be manifestly arbitrary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih laid down guidelines in respect of recovery of amount from the employee and has enumerated situations whereunder it is impermissible in law to recover the amounts. The relevant portion is reproduced as under: “(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post and has been paid accordingly even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. 3/4 15-WP-15847-2023.doc Dixit (v) In any other case where the Court arrives at the conclusion that recovery if made from the employee would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled position of law, the recovery of Rs.1,04,603/- from the Petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.15847 of 2023 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus: “(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to forthwith refund to the petitioner illegally recovered amounts in accordance with the judgments of the Aurangabad Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition no.695 of 2016.” 6. We accept the statement made by Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that the Petitioner shall not claim interest on the aforesaid amount for the period between 9th February 2015 and 11th September 2023. We however clarify that if the aforesaid amount is not refunded within a period of six weeks from today, the Respondents shall refund the sum of Rs.1,04,603/- to the Petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 11th September 2023 till realization. [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] 4/4 15-WP-15847-2023.doc Dixit SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date: 2026.02.24 10:23:52 +0530