.jpg)
The Bombay High Court in Dr Prakash Borulkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. granted relief to a retired medical officer of Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) whose pension and gratuity was reduced by the local body after a government clarification said only public health department doctors were to be given an extension of two years in service beyond the date of retirement.
It was vehemently pleaded that the petitioner did not on his own seek any increase in the age of his retirement from 58 years to 60 years. There was no misrepresentation on his part. It was the TMC that permitted him to serve for an additional period of 2 years. The last pay drawn by him was Rs. 28,600/-. It is not a case where the petitioner’s pay was erroneously fixed and he received a salary more than his entitlement. During such an extended period of service, the petitioner served the TMC as a medical officer and earned his salary. If at all there has been any mistake, such mistake is because of a misreading of the Government Resolution dated 3rd September 2015 by the TMC and the blame therefore must squarely fall on the TMC. The petitioner having worked sincerely and without blemish for over 25 years and more particularly rendered active service as a medical officer during the extended period of service between 58 and 60 years of age, any attempt to recover any sum from the petitioner’s retiral benefits on the ground of mistake arising out of misreading of the said Government Resolution would be most unfair and irrational.
In light of the submissions made, the Court observed that “..neither can the quantum of pension receivable by the petitioner be reduced nor should any quantum of money be recovered from his gratuity. The additional 2 years of service between 58 and 60 years shall be reckoned as part of the total service rendered by the petitioner from his appointment till the date of his superannuation on completion of 60 years of age on 31st December 2018 for computing pension as well as other retiral benefits, including gratuity.”
It was categorically stated by the Court that “ A case of excess payment pursuant to erroneous fixation of pay and process of recovery of such excess cannot be equated with a case of the present nature where the quantum of pension and gratuity payable have been fixed considering the length of service of the petitioner and his unblemished record of service till his retirement on superannuation, which is an essential factor for determining eligibility to receive pension and gratuity.”