The High Court · 2025

.Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo set aside the Proceedings No.83/4218/2013, dated 15.5.2013 of the '1't respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice by extending the benefit of the final order passed in O.A.2886i07 dated 08.07.2010. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. BHARATH SHAH, REPRESENTING SRI K, R. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents No.'l & 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI M. MURALI KRISHNA; S.C. FOR ACCOUNTANT GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA Ii- \RTHIK WRIT PETITION (TR) No. 1343 of 2C 7.7 ORDER: This Writ Petition (TR) is filed seeking to set asi [: the impugned procecdings No.Y3l42la/2013 dated 15-05.2(r ll issuecl by respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of prin :rples of natural justicc.

2. f leard Sri M. Bharath Shah, learned counsel. 'rrprcsenting Sri K.R. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitior-r,: , and lealned Govcrnment Pleader for Services-I, appearing orr beha,lf of tl-re rcspondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tL r t the petitioncr had retired from service as a Superintcndent in respcr clent No. I office on 30.O9.2012, on attaining the age of superalnuati: r. While so, on

15.05.2013, rcspondent No.1 issued the pres tnt impugned procecdings, proposing to recover an amount of Rs: ,47,165/- from thc pctitioner, on the alleged ground of wrong fixati,t r of Fetitioner's pay in thc 1993-Pay Scales, rv.c.f., 14.11.1994. H: rcvcr, the saicl recovery is proposed to be initiated after a long lapr; of almost (15) years, that too, for no fault of the petitioner. as he never 2 PK, J W.P.f&.No,1s43 oJ 2017 mlsrepresented any facts. Furthcr, in gross vioiation of the principles of natural justice, the present irnpugned pi.oceediltgs were issued, rvithout even issuing ary notice calling for an cxplanation from the petitioncr. It is further submitted that the Hon,ble Apex Court has becn consistently holding that no recovery ca, be affectcd, in matters pertaining to pay fixation, if such discrepancy arose due to the fault of the authorities, but not the employecs. Thcrcforc, learned counsel prays this Court to pass necessary orders, setling asidc the present impugncd proceedings datecl 15.05.2O 13.

4. Per colltra, learned Governmcnt pleader submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Typist vide orders dated 20.1O.1990, and his pay was fixed at Rs. 1,21O/_, i.e., minimum of the time scale Rs.910-i,625, as applicable to the post of Junior Assistant. However, his services were ter.minated vide order dated Og.11.1991, on account of his irregular appointment as T)zpist, and the petitioner was relieved from his duties on 13. 1 I . 199 1 . Thereafter, in compliarce with the orders of the erstwhile Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4gO42 of 1991, he was once again taken into duty. It is further submitte d that the petitioner and (16) other employees working in various Temples and Institutions, have submitted their representations to the commissioner of Endowments, 3 PK, J V'r.' 1R).No. 1343 of 2017 Hyderabad, requcsting absorption of their services ir the avarlable vacancies o[ Lhc Department. Accordingly, the Cor t:nissioner had sent the proposals to the Government, requesLjl €, to consider absorpLion of thc services of the employees on humar i .tuian grounds, as:r special casr:, duly relaxing the relevart rules. In pursuance thereof, the Govcrnment issued orders in G.O.Ms,. \o. 1 158 clated

14.11.1994, according permission to regularize the services of the aforesaid (17) indivicluals witll prospective effect. Il ri;r'ever, till his retircment, thc pctitioner's pay was not rightly hxed. I s such, notices wcre issued to the petitioner and other similarly pla < ed individuals, time ancl again, krr recovery of the excess amount dra,r c by them, but the petitioner harri ncver turned up. The petitioner h.ad drawn an exccss amounl Rs.3,47,165/-, which has been rightll :roposed to bc recovered from the petitioner vide impug-ned pI-c r eedings dated

15.05.20 13. In similar circumstances, as per tht: r>rders of the Govcrnment, excess arnount has also been recovered iom two other individuals and the said amount was remitted to tt e Government Treasury. Hence, the excess arnount paid to 1l r petitioner is proposed to be recovcred from his pensionary benefits.

5. It is further submitted that on every occasion, r tile hxing the Revised Pay Scales of the employees, they are inforrr:d that if any 4 PK, J W. P.(lR). No. 1 343 of 2O 1 z proceedings erroneous pay is fixed and found later, the excess amount drawn will be recovered in lumpsum from their salary, wilhout any further notice. Likewise, the petitioner had also been informed at the time of his pay fixation in Revised pay Scales_1993. Further, in G.O.Ms.No. I l58 dated 14.Ll.Igg4, it is clarified that the services of the petitioner and (16) others would be regularized with prospective cffect Pursuant to the same, respondcnt No. I has issued dated 02.12.1994, regularizing their services from However, thc petitioner,s pay has been wrongly fixed in Scales-1993, w.e.f., 01.07.1992, whereas, the same been fixed w.e.f., 14.l l.lgg4. Therefore, since the have paid the petitioner an cxcess amount of Rs.3,47, 165/-, the same is proposed to be recovered from his pensionar5r benefits. As such, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 15.05.2013. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. should have Revised Pay \4.11 . 1.994. respondents 6 Having regard to the submissions made by tearned counser for the respective parties and from a perusar of record, it is evident that the petitioner had retire, from service in the cadre of superintendent on 3O.O9.2O12, on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, on 15.05.2013, respondent No. 1 sent a letter to respondent No.2, 5 PK, J w . .lTR).No.134.3 oI 2017 stating that petitioner's pay at Rs. l,745l-, i.e., in tlr: initial stage of the pay scale Rs. 1,7 45-3,42O /- (1993 Pay Scales) rvir ; v.,rongly fixed at Rs.2,135/-, u.c.f., 14.11.I994, and instructed to <lt:, uct an amount of Rs.3,47,165/- from the petitioner's pensionary benr [its.

7. For better appreciation of the case on hand, th : Court deems it apposite to refer to the decision of the Honble in St, te o.f PunJab u, Rafiq Masihl, wherein, the Honble Apex C t trrt succinctly summarized thc specif-rc circumstalces wht r t rccovery is impermissible. 'lhe lollowing is the relevant excr: prt o[ the said decision. '18. It is nol possible to postulate all situations ofhards rip which would govern emplo]ees on the issue of recovery, whert rrryments have mistalcnly bccn made by the employer, in exccs r of their entitlemcnf. Be tllat as it may, based on the decisions r ferred to hereinabove. \vc may, as a ready rcference, suErrluisc the follorving fe\v situations, wherern recoveries by the : nployers, rvould bc rmper-missible in larv: (r) Recovcry from thc crnployees belonging to Class III:u.r tllass IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (i0 Recoverv from the retred emplovees, or the emplove.: _who are due to rctire rvithin one vear, of the order of recovery. (iir) Recor erv frorn the employees, when the excess pa/ lent has been made for a period in excess of five years, before tlr, :rdcr of recovery is issucd. (iu) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongf ll1'bcen required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has 'l een paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully beer required to work against an inferior post. ' (20 rs) 4 scc 334 a' 6 PK, J w. P. (TR). No. 1 3a 3 of 20 1 2 (u) tn any other casc, wllcte the court arrives at the concluston, that.recovery if made frrrm thc e mployee, ."o"rJ-u-i"ii, ior" har_sh.9r arbitrary to such an extcnt, as would far outrveigh the ". cquitablc balance oflhe crnplorer.s .ighi; ,;;;;.;: (Emphasis supplicd)

8. [n tl-re casc on hand, the pctitioner had retired from service on 30.O9.2012, and the impugned proceedings, proposing rccoveryr werc issued on 15.05.2013. As such, the case of the petitioner squarcll, falls within the circumstances discussed by the Honble Apex Court in RaJiq Masih (supra), more particularly, at paragraph 1S(ii) of the said dccision

9. A barc reading of the impugned proceedings discloses that the said discrcpancy arose only as a result of according the benefit of pay protcction to the petitioner, to rvhicl_r, he is allegcc.lly not entitled, as his earlier appointment as ,Ilpist was on temporary basis only. Thus, it is clear that there is no misrepresentation or any lapse on the part of the petitioner, warranting recovery, and it is entirely due to the administrative lapses that resulted in payment of excess amount to the petitioner. Further, it is categorically asserted by the petitioner that no notice, calring for an expranation, was ever issued nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded, before passing the impugned recovery order. According to the respondents, notices have been 7 PK, J \ I'.(TR).No.134s of 2017 issued to the petitioner, time and again, but tre himself had not turned up. However, no material has been pler:d on record to substantiate that the petitioner was given an opportunity of submitting liis cxplanation, before the impugned r(]. ( very'. 1O. In the light o[ the foregoing discussion and thi] tiru, Iaid down by the Hon'ble Apex Courr in Rafiq Ma.slh (supra), rhi ; Court is of the considered vierv that the impugned recovery rroceedings are unsustainablc, and therefore, liable to be set aside. I 1. Accordingly, the Writ Pctition (TR) is aliowed x:ttiog aside the impugned procecdings No.V3la28/2013 dated 15.() ,.2013 issued by respondent No. 1. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in 1 -ris Writ petition (TR), shall stand closed. No costs i-_ //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.I{ S.GOWRI SHANKAR REGISTRAR S ISTANT I SECTION OFFICER \ The Deputy Commisstoner of Endowments O"prrtm)'.t llyderabad 500001 The Accountant General, (A&E), A.P., Hyderabad. 50Ot l l . The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, I: lvernment of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - 5OOO22. One CC to SRI K. R. SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High Court for the { tate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI l\/. MURALI KRISHNA, S.C. for Accour I rnt General [OPUC] Two CD Copies rffiil- To

3. 4 5 o 7 MP TKS dr- HIGH COURT DA"ED:1010912025 tiE S/ ( o () [iB 2026 z Pi C,t rNTCT * ORDER WP(TR).ho.1343 ot2017 ALLOWTNG THE WR|T 'ET!T!ON (TR) WI'I'i{OUT COSTS r{ f!' ^\It