JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The learned Advocates for the respective sides have taken us through the Petition paper-book, especially the affidavit in reply filed by the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer of the Respondent-Municipal Corporation dated 29 th July, 2024. We have considered the dates and sequence of events, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 . 3. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner (deceased) was inadvertently paid a wrong basic salary of Rs. 378/– instead of Rs. 330/– when he was a Junior Clerk in 1979. Since then, he had been receiving salary with an inadvertent excess amount of Rs. 48/– from 1979 onwards. This had a consistent effect and commensurately he received higher basic salaries due to increments that continued to be added up to his pay-scale, on the basis of Rs. 48/- in excess. He superannuated as a Superintendent in the Class-III category on 31 st May, 2012. The impugned cause of action pertains to the proposed recovery of the excess amounts. 4. In the first affidavit dated 14 th August, 2021 filed by the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer, it is stated in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 as under: “9. I say that, Petitioner was paid excess salary during service then what he was entitled to, therefore the Superintendent of Dhole Patil ward office calculated the excess amount paid along with earned leaves (special leave) of the Petitioner and thereafter recorded recoverable amount of Rs. Rs.4,41,596.40 and the earned leave amount of Rs.1,13,871/- in the service book of petitioner. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit -C is copy of the extract of page no39. of petitioner service book. 10. I say that, as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 rule 134(A) empowers for recovery and adjustment of government dues wrongly paid or paid in excess payment above salary during the service to be adjusted against the pension. I say that, Respondent corporation deducted an amount of Rs.1,13,871/- from the earned leave and an amount Rs. 10. I say that, as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 rule 134(A) empowers for recovery and adjustment of government dues wrongly paid or paid in excess payment above salary during the service to be adjusted against the pension. I say that, Respondent corporation deducted an amount of Rs.1,13,871/- from the earned leave and an amount Rs. 3, 27,725.40 from the gratuity of the Petitioner towards excess salary paid to the petitioner form year 1979 to 2012. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit- C is copy of the challan no 09 728. 1 say after deduction of the aforesaid amount the petitioner is entitled for an amount of 3,94,988/- towards commuted pension and an amount of Rs.1.60 paise to wards gratuity. I say that before the aforesaid amount was deducted, the Petitioner was called upon by the Chief Audit Department, Pension Department and Dhole Patil ward office & informed about the excess amount paid and deduction thereof as Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. I say that last week of January 2020, that Petitioner was called upon to collect the cheque no. 941383 dated 27 th January 2020 drawn on ICICI bank for an amount of Rs.3,94,988/- towards commuted pension and the cheque no.941382 dated 27 th January 2020 drawn on ICICI bank for an amount of Rs.1.60 /- paise towards gratuity, however the petitioner has failed to collect . the said cheque in spite of intimidation Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-D colly are the copies of the cheque no.941383 and cheque no.9413832 dated 27 th January 2020 drawn on ICICI bank.” 5. In the additional affidavit filed by the same Officer on 29 th July 2024, it is stated in paragraph nos. 3 to 5 as under: “3) I say that the Account Department scrutinized the Petitioner's pension file and sent it to the Chief Audit Department of the Respondent Corporation for fixation of Pension, gratuity and commutation. I say that as stated in my Affidavit in Reply in paragraph 7, 8, 9, the Petitioner was wrongly paid basic salary of Rs. 378/- rather than correct salary of Rs. 330/- being a Junior clerk. This inadvertence and confusion in payment of salary continued post his retirement until the Audit Department raised an objection on the Petitioner's file at the time of fixation of regular pension. 378/- rather than correct salary of Rs. 330/- being a Junior clerk. This inadvertence and confusion in payment of salary continued post his retirement until the Audit Department raised an objection on the Petitioner's file at the time of fixation of regular pension. I say that in my earlier Affidavit in Reply in Para 9 and 10, I have explained the process in which the excess amount paid to the Petitioner was recovered and the amounts after deduction and recovery were paid towards gratuity and commuted pension. 4) I say that from January 2019, the Petitioner's regular pension was paid by the Respondent Corporation till his demise i.e. on 18th September 2021. The Petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 28480/- per month as pension with two increment every year in dearness allowance as per the government guidelines. I say that Petitioner was paid total pension of Rs. 9,62,656/- between 1 st January 2019 till 18 th September 2021. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the Pension Register from January 2019 to September 2021. 5) I say that after the demise of the Petitioner, the pensionary benefits of Petitioner were paid to his wife i.e. Smt. Nirmala Subhash Gaikwad ("Petitioner's Wife") vide Family Pension no. F 9530. I say that the Petitioner's wife was paid an amount of Rs. 19,545/- with effect from 19.09.2021 as per 7 th pay commission. I say that the 7 th pay commission was made applicable to the Respondent Corporation in November 2021 and the benefits thereof were given to the Petitioner from February 2022. I further say that pursuant to the 7 th pay commission, 3 out of 5 instalments of the difference of amount in 6 th and 7 th Pay Commission for the period of 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2020 was paid to the Petitioner's Wife by cheque no. 665876 dated 27.06.2024 amounting to Rs.1,93,409/- and the same has been accepted by her on 11.07.2024. I further say that the regular family pension was started to the Petitioner's Wife from February 2022 & pursuant to it the family pension for the period of 19/09/2021 to 31/01/2022 was paid to the Petitioner's Wife vide Cheque no. 227637 dt.14.02.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,05,825/-. I further say that the regular family pension was started to the Petitioner's Wife from February 2022 & pursuant to it the family pension for the period of 19/09/2021 to 31/01/2022 was paid to the Petitioner's Wife vide Cheque no. 227637 dt.14.02.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,05,825/-. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "C" is a copy of the Bill of Payment (Adha bill) on which the Petitioner's wife has signed accepting the said cheques.” 6. In view of the above, the picture that emerges is that the employer deducted the purported excess amounts from the retirement benefits of the Petitioner when he superannuated on 31 st May, 2012, in as much as, large amounts have been recovered even from his widow. This fact of excess payment was communicated to the Petitioner for the first time on 6 th February, 2019, after seven years of his retirement. 7. In view of the above, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) and Syed Abdul Qadir (supra), would squarely apply to the case of the Petitioner. 8. This Writ Petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned action of the Municipal Corporation in deducting the amount from the retirement benefits of the Petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Considering that a public body is involved, the entire amount without interest, shall be returned to the Petitioner within a period of 45 days from today, failing which, the said amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 5% per annum, with effect from the date on which the amount was deducted, till it is actually paid. The interest component shall be recovered from the Officer who causes delay in payment, beyond the period of 45 days. 9. Insofar as the Municipal Corporation having noticed its mistake that first occurred in 1979, which thereafter became the foundation for further benefits paid to the Petitioner by way of cascading effect, we permit the Municipal Corporation to issue a show-cause notice to the Petitioner (widow) calling upon her to explain why the wrongful pay fixation should not be corrected, prospectively, and why the pension amount payable henceforth, should not be revised based on such notional correction. After considering the reply of the Widow, the Municipal Corporation shall pass an order strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of its records. After considering the reply of the Widow, the Municipal Corporation shall pass an order strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of its records. We permit the widow of the deceased Petitioner to take legal assistance and submit her reply to such notice. 10. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the widow is willing to face the notice and, with legal assistance, she would tender her reply to the said notice and contest the stand of the Municipal Corporation. 11. Needless to state, if an adverse order is passed, there shall be no recovery from the Petitioner of the amounts which have already been paid towards pension and commutation of pension. In short, the pension amount shall be recalculated by the revised pay-fixation, which shall be made effective only from the date of the order of the Municipal Corporation on the show-cause notice. 12. The issue as to whether the Petitioner was entitled to an additional increment more than two decades ago, shall not be reopened before the Municipal Corporation, for the purpose of deduction. It would be considered only for the purpose of recalculating the pension amount, prospectively. The widow is at liberty to take up the said issue with the Corporation. 13. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.