The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI A. CHANDRA l;HEKAR sc FoR NPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.8946 OF 2O2S ORDER: This Writ l)etition is filed u nder Articlc 226 ol the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: '...fo issue otl appropnate utit, order, or dlrectotr, trtor<! patliculQrtg u1 lhe. nolure of e Wnl o.f I'lartdanruts, declaing tllc Qctiotl of Respondent No.4 in retiriLcl the l)etiliotu,r with retrospectiue eff"ct 31. t 2.2Ol8 uirle Mllilo No DIi/ OP/ l('NR/ ADM/ JAO/ SA/ JA/ D No.B19/20 dated 21.09.)O2() LL'tlltoltt rrotrce artd tL.'itltotd prottidrrrl Petitioner Luith an oppotlun it.ry orl(.1 srtb.se.ll tent (tcltott olt Ll'-sTrorrtler rl.s No.4 and 5 in recoueriul Rs..36.13.929/' oltt o.[ t]rc retirentettt betrcfils pagable to ['etitiotrcr urdc tlllAlO No. Sll/ Ol'/ K N l?/ SAO./ A()(E)/ A.^o /,JAO(PDN.)/ SA/ D. No. 27 5/ )O ctrtcl t\tlil,lO No DEI / OPi KN R/ Al)lV/ .IAO/ SA/ D.No.139O/ 20 botlL cldc(l 21.12.2O2A as cu.birntrl. rllegt , tl'tlloltt Jurrsdictiort in uictlctttott ol ltnttctltl<'s of t(ttttraL Jusltce att(l ttl tttolatiort of Ar1rcle 300,4 .)[ Consltlutiott ol' lrtdio atrd .s('l q.side l,fte srute tutd cottse,qtlenlllJ dit?cl tha R.'.s'po I I.Jerl f s No.) to 5 herelt lo rcfiurd lhe crlou,rl Rs..l6. lJ.9)t)/ LU[llt .24t); tttlercsl urcl prttl d! retit'enlet and pensionar.'t1 llttrcfils ort lltc Dc.si-s of s<:ruct's rettlert'<l blJ Petitiot rcr ti\ 2 1 . 09. 2 0 :2 0, ond pc.s.s... "

2. Ileard Sri Zakir AIi Danish, Iearned counsel for the petitioner; learned Governmcnl l)leader lor linergy for respondent No.1; and Sri A.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for Northern Port'er Distribution Company of Tclangana Limitcd, for rcspondenL Nos.2 to 5

3. Learned counsel for [hc pcti!-ioner submits that the petitioner \vas appointed as zr Su,eepcr-cum-Sanitary Orderly uide Mcmo daterl 25.10.I984 or) compassionatc grounds, on ., Pi\.J Urp 39 l() )025 - account ol thc death of her husband. Srr rsequenti,v, thc pclitioncr \\'as promoLed as Blue Printer (Cllr:;-. [V Emplo,r,ce) yl16r procccdings dated 04.12.7987 and conrir:ued rn the said posL till 21 .O9.2O2O, i.e., the date on n,hich she s zrs rclieved fro nt servicc'. (b) It is further submitted that responrle r-rt No.4. uide proceedings d:rted 21.O9.2020, relieved the p,:titroner lrom scrvicc rc tr c sl)cc tlvelv by fixing her date ol retirement as 31 .12.2O1a. Ir-r fact, respondent No.4 l-rad carlicr issued a N1crno dnte d 07 .Ol.2O2O shon,ing the petitio:rcr's datr: of retircment as 31.12.2O2O by issuing one-.\ eerr ltotice Hori ever, on account ol the petitionel''s rel rospee tive rctiremcnt. shc u'as inforrned that recoven' of szrlari, paid be-r,orrd 31.12.'.2018 n,ould be effected from h< r pcnsion and terminal lrcne[its. As such, the petitioncr submifted a rcprcscntation to responder-rt No.2 on 02.1 1,2();lO requesting rek-,ase ol hcr pcnsion and terminal benefits u,it hout anv such recoverl (.) It is also submitted that respondent l,lo.5 issued a lettcr dattccl 21 .12.2O2O stating that .ur .ll)rount of 3 PI{..J \\'p 8q 16 2O-)- Rs.36,13,929/- \ ras to be recovered from the petitioner's terminal benefits towards excess salary paid lrom January 2O19 lo August 2020. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 issued proceedings dated 21.12.2O2O ordering recovery of the said amount. (d) Learned counsel contends that the petitioner cannot be made to sufler for no fault of her or,.",n, and that the alleged overpayment occurred solel}r ius to the lapses and administrative lapses of the respondents. Hence, the action of the respondents in retrospectively iixing the petitioner's date o[ retirement and ordering recoven, is illegal, arbitrarv, and violative of principies of natural justice. The petitioner, having actually worked as Blue Printer tlll 21 .O9.2020, is entitled to salan up to that date. Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to refund the amount of Rs.36,13,929/- with interest ti 24'Yo per annum, and to release all the retirement and pensionary benefits duly reckoning the service rendered by the petitioner till 2l .O9 .2O2O. In support of his contentions, learned counsel lor the petitioner relied upon the judgments o[ the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State o;f Punjab and others u, RaJiq 4 ']li..l wp 89+6 202r Masih (White Washer) etc.r and Jagd.ish prasad Singh u. State oJ Bihar and others2,

4. Learncd Standir-rg Counsel for respondrll Nos.2 to 5, based on the counter affidai,it, submits tL at a one ].ear retirement notice u,as issued to the petitioncr, :onsidering hcr age of rctirr:mcnt as 60 r.ears. Horn.ever, due to confusior-r regardir-rg tlLe applrcable agc of retirement fcr thc posts of Blue Printer and Blue Print Operator, which firll urnder tu,o different catcqorics. namel-r'O&M Service ancl Gencr-al Scn.ice respectivcI-r', thc pctitioner's c:tse w.as eranlncd in detail. Upon such i:xarmination, it .,r,as found that thc post of Blue Printer irr the ( )&,M Servicc cat(.gorj. carries a r(,tir(.ment ag(, of 5B vears onh . (b) Accordingly, afLer obtaining clarificirtion lrom the higl-ier auLh()rit ies. tlte petitioner rvas relieved lrom sen.ice. \r'ith her dale of reti.ement retro spectiv:11. fjxecl as 31 .12.2018, I1-l accordance u'ith the prescribeci age of superannuation of 58 years, uide Memo dater,l 2 l.O9.2O2O Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.175 dated 2T.06.lgBi, the period I (2015) 4 SCC 3.1.1 2 (20'221 6 SC]C .1i)- - 5 PI..J u,P 8() 16 2025 of oversta)' in service beyond Lhe age of superannuatlon, even in thc case of Class-lV Government servants, shall be regularized as re-employment, and the pay for such period shall be lixed in terms of Article 521 ol the Civil Service Regulations (CSRs) and G.O.Ms.No.34 1 dated 14.12.1987. The excess pay, if any, drau'n by the employee during such period shall be recovered from the retirement gratuitv. (c) Therefore, rvhile settling the petitioner's retirement benclits, an amount of Rs.36, 13,929 l-, representing the excess salan paid from Januarv 2019 to August 2020, u'as recor,cred in accordance wtth the aloresaid Government Orders. It is lurther submitted that the petitioner's retirement n'.e.f. 31.12.2018 and the subsequent recovery of Rs.36.I 3,929 l- from her terminal benefits are strictlf in conformitv rvith the existing rules and orders in force. Thercfore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund o[ the recovcrcd amount, as the same would be contrary to the said provisions. Hence, learned Stalding Counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6 Pii.. r wp 8() lar 2025 -

5. This Court has taken note of the subrn issions made by learned counscl ior the respecti\re parties.

6. On pcrusal ol the material available (,r record, it is evident that the petitioner ri'as appointed as i. Sw<:eper-cum Sanitary Orderll, uide Memo dated 25.1O.1984 on compassionatc grouncls, consequent upon the dezrth of her husband, and u:rs subscclrreuth. promoted I s Blue printer ulcle proceerlings datcd 04.l).rca7. It is not irr dispute that the petitioner c:ontinued hcr sen,iccs till 21.09..2020

7. Admittedh,, thc rcspondcnts themselvcs issued Memo datcd 07.01.2020 indicating the petitioncr's clare of retirement as 31.I2.2O2O and continucd her services ttll 21 .O9.2O2O. Hou'ever, the rcsponrlcr-rls srrbscquently issuecl the impugned ordcr dated 21.12.2O2O, starinEi that the petrricner ought to l-rave retired frrtm service on 31 . 12.2018 upor. attaining the agc of superannuation and tl-rat an amount oi I-1s.36, 13,929 I tou zrrds the exr:ess salar,r ltaid Iiorn January 2019 to August 2020 has to be rccovercd. Tl-rough the respondeitrs had earlier fixed the petitioner's retirement date as 31.12.2O?.O, they have nou sought to recovcr thc irllesccl excess serlrrr,r, paicl from 7 PK,J ub 8(lt6 2025 January, 2019 to August 2020, during which period they admittedl], obtained service from the petitioner.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafig Masih's case (1 supra). The Hon'blc Supreme Court, after reviewing several precedents, summarized in paragraph No. 12 the situations vl'here recoven of excess payments made to employees would be impermissible in law. The relevant portion of paragraph No. i 2 of the said judgment reads as under:

12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship u,hrch rvould govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments h:rve mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlcment. Be that as it may, we are satisfied, in ordcr to a\ord harrdship to employees, that recovery by the cmplol,crs rr, oulcl bc impcrmissiblc in law in thc following CASES: (i) Rccovcry, from employees belonging to Class III and Class lV service (or Group 'C'and Group 'D'serwice). (ii) Rccovcr5' from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire lt'ithin one year, of the order of recovery being passcd. (ii1) (n,) (\,) In any othcr casc, u,hcrc the Court arrives at the conclusion that rccovery i[ madc lrom the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or a;bitrar-n.- to such arr extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balar-rce of thc cmployer's right to recover." .- 8 PIi,J wp 89.16 2025

9. According to the petitioner, the post of Blue Printer fa11s under the Class IV categor\,', u'hereas ac rording to thc respondents, it falls under Class ltl. Be that a:, ]t ma_\., in viern. of the above judgment, the pctitioner's CAS(] sqlrarely fa11s u,ithin clause (i) and (ii) of paragraph No. 12 of RaJiq Masih's case ( 1 supra), which catego;i62111, prohibits rt:co,',ery of any excess payment made to emplolees belonging [o Class III and Class IV catcgories, or to retired emplot.ccs, ir,,hen such overpayment occurred u.itl-rout an-r' mi srepresetrl-ation or fraud on their part. Thercforc, this Courl is ol Lht: r.ieu' that thc respondcnts are not juslilicd 1n effectir-rg re:rovery of the amount in question from the petitior-rer's termitral benefits

10. Furthcr, lcarned Standing Counsel lor rcsponclent Nos.2 to 5 has filed a Memo stating Lhat respondent No.4 issued proceedings dated 26.05.2025. u'herein it is tentioned that the petitioner rras retircd retro spec tir.e ly on 31.12.2018 A.N., and that the period from 0l .O 1.2019 to 31 08.2020 r,vas treated as re-employment. It is furtl'rer stated 'therein that the minimum pay in the JLM cadre scale in the BpO SApp-ll scale of pa,\r \\.21s fixed as rcmuneration fo - thc said re - employment pcriod, alld that her pcnsionarr i:cnefits u.ould 9 PIi,J wp 89a6 2025 be settled without reference to the earlier recovery proceedings. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,57,300/- towards initial pay on re employment has been refunded to the petitioner. The same is not seriously disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. Admittedly, there is no misrepresentation, suppression of facts or lraud on the part of the petitioner. The respondents themselves contrnuecl her in service till 27 .O9.2020, and thereafter sought lor recovery ol alleged excess salary I i Further, the impugned proceedings ordering recovery were issued and acted upon r,r,ithout affording any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is of the vierv that the impugned order dated 21. 12.2O2O is liable to be set aside

12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2O2O and the respondents are directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner, after adjusting the amount paid towards initial pay on re-employment, $'ith simple interest at the rate of 60/o per 10 l,t(..l lvp tJ9+6 202: - arnum frorn the datc the amount fell due unril the date of its payment, along rvith all consequential bene fits clue to the petitioncr. The said exercisc shall bc ,:ompletecl as expeditiously as possible, preferablv ,,r,ithin a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if ar-v, shall stand ciosed. There shall be no order as [o costs. Sd/.A.II.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/i To, State of Telanqana, HvderabaZ

1. The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretar at Buildings, Saifabad, 2. Chairman and IVlanagihg Direcfor, Telangana Northern power Distribution _ uompany Ltmtted. corporate office at waranqal, 5060r)1 . 3. Superintend Engineer, Operation at Karimnao"ar 4. The Divisional Engineer. Electrical Operationl karimna, r" r 5. Sentor Accourts Officer, Circie Office. Karimnaoar 6 One CC to SRt ZAKTR ALt DAN|SH. RdvocateiopUc 7. Two CCs to Gp FoR ENERGY, High Court forine sG,e of Tetanoana. toUTl v e vq '!u tvv '| r 8 one CC to SRt A. CHANDRA sHEkAR. Adv;cjt" toFuij 9. Two CD Copies l\i1l\,47 Pl\ilK ,1 HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 ORDER WP.No.8946 of 2025 I r:- Sir )'n r,i r! ifi25 .,!: . ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f- J