D Daiva Prasanthi, D/o D v. Dhana Raju Age

S.GSrinivasRao,,S/oG.VenkataSastry,Age54YearsOcc-Executive : Ensi;""r,-rriuti' nyo Flat No-'101,r Jhan3i Residency Near Sri Sri Holistic Hoiiplqt Nizampet Road Hyderabad.-500072

9. D M Raipure,, S/o Motiram Raipure, Age 57 Years, Occ-Member Secrelary' - knMe'*o riit tto soe, ciri Sikhara Enclave H No. 6-3-603, Hilltop Colony, Eirum Manzil, HYderabad- 500 082.

10.L B Muanthang., S/0 (L) T Tangselthang, Age.56 Years, Occ- Member (Power), KRMB-R/o Surya Abode, Anand Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 't 1.P Ravichandra,, S/o P. Hanumantha Rao Age 54 Years, Occ- Deputy Executive Engineer, KRMB R/o Flat No 307, Vasantha Lotus, Vasantha Valley, White Fields Kondapur, Hyderabad- 500 084. PI Alay Yadav, S/o (L) T Sambaiah Age Y-egp..Qgc-^Depltty E;<ecutive engin'eer, KRMB Rio H No 12-13-1274, B-2O3,ASPEN Complex' Tarnaka, Hyderabad, Telangana. -aQ '13.S Sridhar Kumar.. SA) S. Hrisikesh Age.43 Yea.rs, OcS- DpPuty E19cut.!v9 ftngipeer. KRMB R/o FIat No. 401(Pent House), D.Nq.3-12'121/4/-401 -SAl SfEiUnruoen Apartmenl Ganesh Nbgar Ramanthapur, , Hyderabad-S0O913 14. L Gayatrr Devi. D/o L Venkateswara Rao Age . 47 Years' Occ- Deputy Executive Engineer, KRMB R/o Flat No.202, R.R. Residercy, ShitpS Avenue Colony, Nearbalvary Temple, Miyapur, Hyderabafl '500049

15.K Srebnath Reddy, S/o K Ramachandra Reddy Age . 60 YeanOcc- Deputy Executive Engin6er. KRMB R/o H No 11-'10-315, Road No.1' V'luyapUrt Cglony, R.K.Puam, Kothapet, ldyderabad:500Q35 16.G V Lakshmi Kumari, p7s 6. Brahmgiah , Agq Executive Engineer, KRMB R/p Plot No, 812, H. N Nagar QolonY, ,12 YearQ,9cc.AssistAnt a. 3-5.1 04/2, Vivekananda

17.D Daiva Prasanthi, D/o D V. Dhana Raju Age . 37 Years, Occ-Assistant Executive Engineei, KRlr/B R/o H No. 61-15, Qround Floor,Huda Colony, Qhandanagar,Hyderabad-500050.

18. I Sujata. 0i0 I Adinarayana Age 47 Years, Ocg-{qs19!anl E19cu.tiv-e Enqineer, KRMB R/o Bhalawan Sai Residency, Plot Np.290/A, Flat No.10?, ZnO Floor, Street No 12, Addagutta. Western Hills, Kukatpally, Hyderabad' 000072

19.A Madhavi Latha, D/a A Sambasiva Rao Age ,44 Years, Qcc-Assistqnt Executive Enqrneer, KRMB R/o H. No. Flat No. 601' Diamond Block, Harmony Heig-hts. Namalgundu, Warasiguda, Hyderbad-500025;

20.M Rajesh Charr SP) M Sathyanarayana Age Q5 Yqqs-- O-cc:Assistant Execrjtive Enqineer, KRMB R/o Flat No 101, CORAL RED, Street No 2, Radha Nagar.-Suncity. Bandlaguda jagir, Hyderabad-500086

21.D Dhanalakshmi, , D/o D. K. Vlswana(han Age.48 Years, Qcc-,{ssigtant Executive Engineer, KRMB R/o Flat No.602, Utopia"C, Lodha Casa Paradiso, -marn road, Near Fathe nagar MMTS Hydefabad Sanathnagar 22.K Savithri . D/o K. Kutumba Rao Age . 47 Years, Occ-Assistant Executive Engineer, KRMB R/o Door No. 16-11-37011 , SSSV Nilayam, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad-500036

23. Y Baby Shalini,, D/o Y. Vijaya Kumai Age . 35 Years, Occ-Assistant Executive Enginrier, KRMB R/o Flat No.-401, Devastuti nilayam, Jaffarali Bhag, somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082

24. K Visala,, D/o K S. Haranadha Rao Age . 50 Years, Occ-Superintendent, KRMB R/o H. No. 32'1lA, Parvathi Nagar' Sainikpuri, ECIL,Hyderabad

25.M Madhavi Latha, D/o Balwanth Singh Age 47 Yg?ts, Occ-Superintendent, KRMB R/o Bapu nagar, Langar Hou5e, Hyderabad-50008

26.K Rajya Lakshmi., D/o K. Venkat Rao Age . 50 Ybars, Ogc-Senior Assistant, KRMB R/o Plot No-302, WK Residency, Dattakaya Golony Asif Nagar, Hyderabad-28

27.Baba Sharfuddin ,, S/o ftrlohammed Yakoob,Age 59 Years, Occ. Superintending Engineer- repatriated to parent Department R/o Ananth Vihar Apartment, ToliChowki, Hyderabad-500008

28. M Venugopal,, S/o M. Ramanna, Age . 55 Years Occ. Deputy Executive Engineer- repatriated to parent Department Rio H. No. 2-2-11331514, Sirnivasa Sai Villa New Nallakunta,Hyderabad -500044

29.A Srirapa Sastry,, S/o Sambasiva Rao, Age 48 Years Occ.Assistant Executive Engineer- repatriated to parent Department R/o H. No. C-25, NSK Bliss Meadows,Rama Krishna Nagar, Madinaguda, .Hyderabad - 500049 30.K Sripivas, S/o K. Mallesh, Age.35 Years Occ-Assistant Executive Engineer repafriated to parent Department R/o H. No.:1-64, Hydernagar Colony, Manchirevula, Gandipet Mandal, Rangg reddy District, Hyderabag 500089 31.M N A Faheem,, S/o M Nayeem Haji, Age. 36 Years Occ-Assistant Execulive Engineer repgtriatqd to parent Department R/o H. No.'12-2460127, FtE,t No 602, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad 50Q028 " l 32.Shailqjg Bai,, D/o S. Narayana Rao, Age 46 Years Occ-$uperintendent repatriatgd to parent Department R/o H. No.12-10-40014, Seetaphal Mandi, Secunderabad

33.B Sreevatsala,, D/o G.Chennakesavulu, Age 33 YearE Execqtive-Eogineer: repetriateg !o pargnt qqp?qlrent FUo t-! Phanigir:i Colohy, Chaitnayapuri, Hyderabad-500060 Assistant 1 6-Aq0, .No. ...PErTrQNER(S) AND 't . Chairman Krishna River Management Board (Autonomous Body), Sth Floor, Jal Soudha. lrrum Manzil, Hyderabad, Telangana, Pin-500082 (eMail. chairman. krmborgov. in)

2. Union qf lndia, Rep by Secretary, DoWR, RD and GR Union Ministry of Jal Shakti Shram Shakti Bhavan Nelv Delhi-1 10001 (eMail. sgcy mPwrornic in) 3. Special Chief Secretary I and QAD Dgptt, Govt. of Telangana, 9RKR Bhawan, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly onq in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondentg 'l an{ ? iglUlng thP otCer to recovery of incentlves already paid vide gfders dated 24.3.,292tr ald 2l? 2929 as being illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14,2',1 and 300-4 9f constitutipn of lndia and consequently set aside the above said orders issued by respon{ent 1 and 2 and direct them to pay the incentives as per the Board decision and stay the proceedings of recovery of the incentives already pald. !..A,Nol:l oF 2923 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be please$ !o set aside the orders issued by the Respondent-l dated 24-3-20.?3 and Respondent-2 daled 24-2-2023 and stay the proceedings of the recavery 9f incentives already paid and conttnue the paypbnt of inqentives as per the Bgatd decision. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI G.SATISH BABU pounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 :SRl THAKUR ROOPA SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : G.P FOR IRRIGATION ANp COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT The Gourt made the following ORDER THE HON 'BLE SRI JTISTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NAI{DIKONDA ORDER: G)er Hot'ble Sri Justice P.Sant Koshg) WRIT PETITION No.12253 OF 2o23 Heard Mr.Gaddam Satish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Thakur Roopa Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Perused the material available on record.

2. The challenge in ttre present writ petition is to the order dated

24.03.2023, passed by the Krishna River Management Board (for short KRMB).

3. Vide the impugned order, the respondents have ordered for stopping of ttre incentive palrment to the tr.me of 25o/o of ttre basic pay to the petitioners while they are working on the respective posts under the KRMB. In addition, the impugned order also orders for the recovery of the payment of 25ok of incentive made to the petitioners in between.

4. The petitioners herein are all employees who were working with the State Government erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, now in the two bifurcated States of Andhra Pradesh as also that of Telangana. Subsequent to the creation of the Krishna River Management Board, upon coming into force of Andhra Pradesh Reorganizati on Act 2014, the employees working with the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh now two states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were called on deputation to work with the l"t respondent Board. While these petitioners were working with the 1"t respondent Board, the Board had resolved vide 20.1O.2O2O in terms of the resolution approved by the Board members for pa5,,rnent of an incentive of an additional 25o/o of the basic pay to all the employees working in the l"t respondent Board with effect from 01.10.2020 vide circula.r Note No.1/05l2014IKRMB, dated O1.10.2020.

5. In terms of the said resolution, an order dated 2O.10.2O2O, the petitioners herein were grarrted the benefit of incentive of salar5r to the tune of additional 25o/o of the basic pay, which the petitioners received continuously uninterruptedly till the impugned order was passed on

24.O3.2023.

6. It is this order of stoppage of the grant of incentive as also the order for recovery of the benefit of incentive drawn by the petitioners from 01.1O.2O2O to February 2023, which is under challenge in tJle present writ petition.

7. The primary contention of the petitioner at the threshold itself is that the said grant of incentive was not received by the petitioners on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played or made by them. According to them, the incentive was granted as per the decision of the l.t respondent Board vide order dated 28.10.2O2O and the resolution ----.--r.*--i-- for grant of this incentive was made effective from 01.10.202O. According to the petitioners, none of them are in any manner instrumental for the issuance of the so ca-lled resolution dated 2O.IO.2O2O, as regards the grant of incentive is concemed. According to the petitioners it is a unilateral decision of the respondent Board initially to grant and subsequently to withdraw the same, therefore, for the excess benefit that has been drawn by the employees pursuant to the order dated 20.10.2O2O, they cannot now be penal2ed by way of recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed their counter and contend that upon verification of facts it was found that the department had erroneously granted this exorbitant amount of incentive to the petitioners which is not prevalent in any of the Government institutions and when it was realized and detected, steps were taken for the withdrawal of the same and an order for recovery have been made.

9. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the judicial precedents that has been made in the recent past. In the case of State of htnJab o. Rafiq Mdsihl, one of the leading judgment in the recent past so far as any excess amount having paid to the employees and '2015 +scc a3+ tJre recovery of the same is concerned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.18 has laid down certain guidelines which puts a clear embaxgo upon the respondents from initiating recovery proceedings. For ready reference paragraph No.18 is quoted hereunder:

18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govem employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from tJle employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C ald Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of live years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrar5r to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.'

10. The said judgment of Raftq Ma.sih supra, by the Honble Supreme Court itself is based upon all the judicial precedent that were made in the past. Following the said judgment there is yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ttre case of Thomas Donlel V. Stalte of Kerald, decided on O2.O5.2O22, wherein the recovery orders of such nature have been set aside and interdicted by the Honbie Supreme Court holding it to be impermissible under law.

11. Another fact which needs to be appreciated at this juncture is ttrere being no dispute so far as the learned counsel for the petitioner or for that matter respondents, as regards there being no misrepresentation or fraud made by the petitioners insofar as the benefit of incentive that they have received from 01.10.2020 ti1l February 2023. Admittedly, the benefit of incentive has been given to the petitioners pursuant to the respondent No.l's Boards resolution dated 20.lO.2O2O.

12. Thus, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the petitioners were not either instrumental or responsible nor is there I I 2 Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010. ( I/ any involvement in gctting the additional incentive or having obtained the same by pla.,,ing ll.aud with the respondents. 13' In the teettr of the aforesaid admitted factual backdrop and the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs, we have no hesitation in aro'*'i.g the writ petition to tJ'e extent of hording that the order of recovery as ordered by the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 is impennissible under law and therefore the same is set aside. However, s.ince it was a policy decision of the 1st respondent Board to grant the in<:en1iy" which they have subsequenfly for reasons mentioned having withdrawn, we do not interfere with the said decision so far as the withdrawal of the incentive is concerned. As a consequence, tite irrstant writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned or<.ler darea 24.o3.2o23 is set aside only so far as the order of recovery is concemed. As a scquel nriscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. I That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above' witr""" itt" Hon'ble the Aciing Chief Justice S-UJOY PAUL' on this W;;i;;, th" Twelfth a"y oi r"ut'"rv' Two Thousand and rwentv five' //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR () ECTION OFFICER To l.ThechairmanKrishnaRiverManagementBoard(Autonomouspo^dYlSth.. ' fi..r, iris.udha, lrrunr UrnriL Hyt"'"bad Teiangana' Pin-590982 (aMall' p52i6n6n.krmborgov. i n) n r l SA

2. The Secr:etary, Union of lndia, DoWR, RD and GR Union Ministry of Jal Shakti Shram Shakti Bhavan New Delhi-110001 (eMail secy mowrornic.ln) 3. The $pecial Chief Secretary I and CAD Deptt, Govt. of Telangana, BRKR / Bhawan, Hyderabad.

4. Two QC's tq G.P FQR IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telanganq at Hyderabad, (OUT)

5. Qle CQ to SRI G.SATISH BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One QC to SRI THAKUR ROOPA SINGH, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CQ Copies BS 2' Ie TA r€r 0 [ u[H ?tr6 (:; o I Dt S r)Ai It HIGH OURT DATED:1210212025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.12253 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. // 4"t 4 /3//