Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently overruled an order by an education inspector in 1999 to recover ₹2,500 paid to a teacher as salary.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anoop Mohta and M.S. Karnik was hearing a plea filed in 1999 by Sulbha Vithalkar, challenging an order passed by an education inspector directing salary paid to her over several years be recovered. The order was given despite the fact that her appointment was approved by the education inspector. In her plea, Ms. Vithalkar claimed she had not concealed or misrepresented facts at the time of her appointment.
On December 22, 1999, the court had recorded that Ms. Vithalkar had been appointed as Assistant Teacher at Mulinche Samartha Vidyalaya in 1985. At the time of joining, she possessed a BA degree. In 1986, she completed her MA. Ms. Vithalkar was paid between ₹365 and ₹760, which was revised to between ₹1,400 and ₹2,600 by the Fourth Pay Commission.
Nearly 12 years after her appointment, an objection was raised regarding her qualifications as she didn’t possess a B.Ed degree, and her BA degree was not recognised by the State government at the time. Therefore, she should be treated as an untrained teacher and be paid between ₹335 and ₹680. On the basis of this contention, the education inspector ordered that ₹2,500 be recovered from her with retrospective effect in three instalments.
The court had stayed the education inspector’s recovery order, and said she was entitled to retirement benefits between ₹1,400 and ₹2,600 per month. This order was not challenged by the school or the inspector, and she was receiving her salary and benefits after retirement. The court noted, “We have noted that there is no case of any suppression of fact and/or misrepresentation of fact and/or fraud. Such recovery after more than 14 years of basic appointment, in our view, is also not sustainable specifically in the background that she has been working without any interruption based upon the initial sanction and approval by the said parties. Therefore, the entitlement benefits to her, in our view, ought not to have been disturbed in such a fashion after more than 14 years of her first appointment.”
