Case Title: Dr. Prakash Borulkar V. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
After the government clearly stated that only public health department doctors were to be given extensions of two years in service beyond the date of retirement, the Bombay High Court recently granted relief to a retired medical officer of Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC), whose pension and the local body reduced gratuity.
"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 a misreading of the said Government Resolution would be most unfair and irrational", the court observed. The verdict was reached in a writ suit contesting a decrease in pension and gratuity and the recovery of excess payment from his retirement benefits by the division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar.On December 31, 2016, the petitioner was scheduled to retire at age 58. He was able to work until December 31, 2018, the day he turned 60, according to a Government Resolution (GR) dated September 3, 2015, which was approved by the TMC. His pension and gratuity were set based on his last drawing pay, which was Rs 28600 per month when he resigned.
The state administration, however, made it clear in 2020 that the 2015 GR only applied to public health department personnel, not to those who worked for municipal corporations or councils. The petitioner was compelled to go before the court once the clarification was applied to his case.
The petitioner did not ask for his retirement age to be raised from 58 to 60, the court noted. The petitioner did not make any false statements, and the TMC was the one who gave him permission to extend his service by two more years, the court said. The petitioner served on this job for a lengthy period of time and earned his wage, the court noted, noting that the pay was not adjusted incorrectly, and he did not get more than was allowed.
"If at all there has been any mistake, then 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 court said.
The court also said that not only would the recovery procedure "be unjust and cruel" to the petitioner but that it would also far exceed the TMC's equitable entitlement to recoup any supposedly overpaid sum. The current case, where the petitioner's pension and gratuity have been determined considering the duration and spotless record of his service, cannot be compared to a case of excess payment owing to incorrect pay fixation, the court said.
The petitioner's pension and gratuity cannot be lowered, the court said. Furthermore, nothing from his gratuity should be reclaimed. The extra two years will be added to the petitioner's overall service time. The petitioner's money that was recovered by the TMC was to be refunded, the court said. Additionally, the court prohibited the TMC from deducting any additional sums from the petitioner's pension.