DYANESHWAR RAMBHAU MANDEKAR vs ZILLA PARISHAD, AKOLA THR. ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. — WP/6637/2023

Case under Service Matter Section 226. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.

Next hearing 08-May-2026

CNR: HCBM040271992023

Filing Number

WP/19286/2023

Filing Date

25-Sep-2023

Registration No

WP/6637/2023

Registration Date

29-Sep-2023

Judge

Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande

Coram

Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande

Bench Type

Division

Category

APPOINTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONARIES ( 3 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 26-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Service Matter Section 226
The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,1961
Mah. Civil Services Pension Rules
Constitution of India

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DYANESHWAR RAMBHAU MANDEKAR

    Adv. ANUP SHANKAR DHORE,YASH SANJAY BANGALE,YASH SANJAY BANGALE, ,KARAN DEEPAK BHENDE,YASH SANJAY BANGALE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ZILLA PARISHAD, AKOLA THR. ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.

    Adv. ,ANKUSH M. TIRUKH 1123

  2. 2.EDUCATION OFFICER (PRIMARY), ZILLA PARISHAD, AKOLA

  3. 3.DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS AND FINANCE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, AKOLA

  4. 4.BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT SAMITI, BARSHITAKLI, AKOLA

Case History

  1. 08-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar,hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao DeshpandeView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/6637/2023 Outcome: Petition allowed. The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court quashed recovery orders dated 01.06.2023 and 22.06.2023 directing deduction of Rs. 2,04,542 from retired teacher Dnyaneshwar Mandekar's gratuity for alleged excess payments. The court ordered respondents to return any deducted amount within four weeks and pay full gratuity/retiral benefits without deductions. Key Finding: Recovery was impermissible under Supreme Court precedent because: (1) petitioner was Class III employee; (2) petitioner had already retired; (3) excess payment allegedly made 7+ years prior to recovery order; and (4) no fraud/misrepresentation by petitioner established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar,hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao DeshpandeView PDF

  4. 30-Jan-2026

    For Admission-Service Matters

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande

  5. 14-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar,hon'ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao DeshpandeView PDF

  6. 14-Jan-2026

    For Admission-Service Matters

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar , Hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. Chandwani

  7. 17-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar,hon'ble Shri Justice M. W. ChandwaniView PDF

  8. 04-Sep-2024

    For Admission - Circulated Matters (Civil Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote , Hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar

  9. 28-Aug-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote,hon'ble Smt. Justice M. S. JawalkarView PDF

  10. 08-Mar-2024

    For Orders

    Registrar (Judicial)

  11. 05-Jan-2024

    Registrar (Judicial)View PDF

  12. 03-Nov-2023

    Fresh Admission (Civil Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar , Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

  13. 06-Oct-2023

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar,hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF

  14. 06-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 25-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6637/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/6637/2023 Outcome: Petition allowed. The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court quashed recovery orders dated 01.06.2023 and 22.06.2023 directing deduction of Rs. 2,04,542 from retired teacher Dnyaneshwar Mandekar's gratuity for alleged excess payments. The court ordered respondents to return any deducted amount within four weeks and pay full gratuity/retiral benefits without deductions. Key Finding: Recovery was impermissible under Supreme Court precedent because: (1) petitioner was Class III employee; (2) petitioner had already retired; (3) excess payment allegedly made 7+ years prior to recovery order; and (4) no fraud/misrepresentation by petitioner established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case