The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section r 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings Nos 4290/7 4l2Ol3lAcctslpen. Dated 3.1-05-2013 and MR127l39l81lEstt.lll dated 2B-o9 zo13 of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in refixing my pay at Rs.700/- instead of Rs.900/- w.e.f. 11-6-1984 and recovery of Rs.1,93,01 S/-representing five advance increments, l.A. NO: 2 OF 201S(WPMP. NO 1S698 0F 2015) Petrtron under Sectron 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in sr-rppo( of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the Petitroner to (lrroct the respondents to release Rs.2,S7,01gl Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt P.B.VIJAYA KUMAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SMT A.V.S.LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI M.SRINIVAS REDDY, SC FOR OU Counsel for the Respondent No.3: cP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAIiIA.\/ARAPU RS6IESHWAR RAO WRIT PEIITION No.28549 of 2O13 ORDER: This writ petition is hled seeking to declare Proceeding Nos.429O/741 2013/Accts/Pen, dated

31.05.2013 and MR127139181/Estt.III, dated 28.O9.2OL3 of respondents 1 and 2 in re-fixing the petitioner pay, withdrawing increments and communicating statement of recovery along with pension sanctioning order under proceedings No.297 5 / SP I 2550 / Accts/ Pension, dated 23. O6 -2O I 4, recovering excess amount of Rs.5.57,O19 /- as illegal and arbitrary and consequently by nulliffing the same, direct the respondents to refund the said amount of Rs.5,57,019/- with interest @ l2o/o p.a.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner has joined as Technician in the year 198L in thereafter she was appointed as a ) Computer Operator in the pay scale of Rs'6O0-1O5O and her pay was hxed at Rs.65O/- per month, as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee vide proceedings datecl 31 .O8.1982 and posted at University Computer Centre. Subsequently, she took voluntary retirement on 30.04.2013 on personal grounds and the s€une was accepted by the l"t respondent vide letter dated 07.03.2013. The petitioner has completed 31 years o[ service. (b) At the time of joining, the petitioner was given two advance increments and her basic pay was fixed at Rs 6.50/ and her pay hxation under R.S.P. lga6, ir993 an<i 2OO5 was approved by the State Audit Department. (c) When the petitioner applied for early retirement bencfits, she was informed that an objection hacl been raised by the Loca-l Fund Audit regarding thc grant of pension. The l't respondent, 3 ttrrough letter dated 26'lt'2}t2' requested the 2'a respondent to waive the objection' In response' the 2"d respondent, bY letter dated 27.11.2012, directed the 1st respondent to rehx the petitioner's pay and furnish relevant Particulars- (d) Now, the respondents sought to recover the amount paid to the petitioner at the time of her appointment, which included two advance increments granted on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. RelYing on the assurance and incentrve offered at the time of her appointment ln 1984, the petitioner had joined the said post' The petitioner also submitted rePresentation da'ted 14.12.2012 to the 1"' respondent, opposing the proposed recovery and pay respondents issued refixation. Thereafter, the proceedings, dated 31.05.2013, 2a'Og'2013 and 23.06.2014. Aggrieved ttrereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ Petitron' 4

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that issuance of proceedings dated 31.05.2013, 28.09.2013 and 23.O6.2Ot4 by respondent Nos. 1 ancl 2, respectively, for refixing the petitioner's pay at Rs.7O0/- instead of Rs.9O0/_ with effect from 11.06. 1984, ald the consequent recovery of the alleged amount is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside rhe proceedings, dated 31.05.2O13,

28.09.2013 and23.06.2O14 issued b-y respondent Nos. I and 2 respectively, ald allow the writ petition. 4 The 1"' respondenr filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The 2"a respondent, u,hile approving the petitioner's pay furation, raised the following objection: " Subject to ctpproual of gouernntent on Higher staft giuen at Entnl leuel." ) (b) The petitioner opted for voluntaqr retirement on personal grounds, and the University, vide order dated 07.03.2013, permitted the petitioner to retire from service on 30.04.20 13. Regarding the audit objection, the University, through a letter dated

13.09.2013, addressed the Deputy Secretar5r to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requesting ratification of the action taken by the Universitv 1n granting the Higher Start to the petitioner (c) The petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.20i3, submitted that in response to the Notihcation issued in 1982 for the post of Computer Operator, she was appointed as Computer Operator in the pay scale of Rs.6OO-1O5O with a starting pay of Rs.65O/-, and she was informed that her pension was not fixed due to the State Audit objection. She hrrther submitted that there 6 was no objection in approving RSP-86, RSP-93, RSP- 2005 and requested for refixation of her pay from entry level to overcome the Audit Objection. (d) Accordingly, the University, through Letter No. MR-127139l81/trsst.lll dated 28.O9.2O13, informed the Director, University Computer Centre, O.U., that in the process of waiving the objection raised by the State Audit with respect to the pay hxation under RSP-2010 of the petitioner, Computer Operator (Retd), the Higher Start aw'arded to her at the time of appointment had been u'ithdrawn (e) The University has u'ithdrawn the Higher Start granted to the petitioner and her pay was ref,rxed based on her request. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled challenge Proceedings No. 4290 I 74 I 2Ol3lAccts/PEN dated 3 1.05.2013 and MR- 127139/81/Esst.III dated 28.09-2013, issued by 7 respondents I and 2, wherein her pay was refixed, the increments were withdrawn, and a recovery statement was communicated along with the pension sanction order under Proceedings No. 2975/SPl2550l Accts/PEN dated 23.06.2014, recovering an excess amount of Rs.5,57,O 19 with interest at l2o/o per annum.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have rightly passed the proceedings, dated 3 1.05.20l3 , 28.O9.2013 and 23.06.2O14 and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits ald the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, Iearned Senior Counsel representing Smt.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2 and the 8 learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3'd respondent. Perused the record 7 . In the instant case, on 03.1O.2013, this Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim suspension. At the time of passing the said interim order, the letter dated 14.08.2013. which is said to have been addressed by the petitioner, ls not on record. Subsequently, the 1"'respondent filed I.A.No. 1 of 2025 seeking to receive the letter dated 14.08.2013 addressed by the petitioner 8 In the present case, the petitiolter is seeking to refund the amount of Rs.5,57,Oi9/- u'ith interest (r, l2ok per annum.

9. A perusal of the counter aflrdavit goes to show that the respondent authorities have stated that the University withdrew the Higher Start given at the entry level and rehxed the pay of the petitioner at her orvn 9 request. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to proceedings No. 4290/7412O13/Accts/PEN, dated 31.O5.2013, and MR-127 /39181/Estt.III, dated 28.O9.2013, issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents in refixing the petitioner's pay, withdrawing increments, and communicating the statement of recovery along with the pension sanction order under proceedings No. 2975/SP/2550/ Accts/PEN, dated 23.06.2014, are invalid.

10. In the case on hand, the petitioner herself made a representation to the authorities on 14.08.2013 regarding the fixation of pay at the entry level. A perusal of the said letter goes to show that it bears the petitioner's own signature, wherein it is stated that "subject to approval of Government on higher start given at entr5r level.' It means, if the Government had approved the higher start, the question of recovery would not have arisen. However, in the present case, t0 the Government did not approve the higher start, and the Universitl', through Lr.No.MR- 116/39 / 8l /Estt'III, dated 13.09.2013, addressed the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requr:sting ratiltcation of the action taken by the 1n allowing the Higher Start to the University pelitioner. Subsequently, through Lr. No. MR- 127I39I81lEstt III, dated 28.O9.2013, the University inlormed the Director, Universit5r Computer Centre, OU, that in the process of waiving the objection raised bv the Statt: Audit for approval of the pay fixzrtion of the petitioner in RPS-2O1O, the Higher Start awarded to her at the time of aPPointment AS Computer Ope rator was withdrawn.

11. Thus, the University withdrew the Higher Start given at the entry level and rehxed the petitioner's pay at her own request. In these circumstanccs, the relief 1l sought by the petitioner for refund of the recovered amount with l2o/o interest does not arise.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the Honble Apex Court in THOMAS DANIEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.71 15 of 2OlO, dated O2.O5 -2022 and STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) AND OTHERSI' In the said cases, mistakenly excess amount was paid by the authorities and the sarne was directed to be refunded. But, in the present case, no excess amount was paid to the petitioner by mistake. Moreover, the petitioner in her letter dated 14.08.2013 requested the 1"' respondent to refix her pay from ent4r level onwards "subject to approval of Government on higher start given at entry level"' When the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, she was informed that there was arl objection from the I (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334 2 Loca-l Fund Audit and that the Higher Start given to her at the entry level was subject to Government approval. Since the State Government did not approve the Higher Start, the respondents have rightly recovered the alleged amount from the petitioner. Therefore, the re are no merits in the writ petition, arrd the same is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// t- $1 . JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGTSTRAR S TION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 One CC to SIr,4T A V.S.LAXIvfl, Advocate [OPUC] ..-i One CC to SRt N/.SR|NIVAS REDDY, SC FOR OU [OPUC] Iff":fr:Ji3&FoR EDUCATIoN, High cou( ror the state or rerangana at Two CD Copies BSR &, HIGH COURT DATED i2511012025 ORDER WP.No.28549 of 2013 H1 E i4S ( o 7 1 Rl\ t4 lr,tfr i 2a ) * PA,-c t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS J(s 2qlzltc