The High Court · 2025

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in inserting the condition to the petitioner vide Proc. Rc.No.13- A412O17, dated 0310312017, to pass Accounts Test Part-l, within a per/od of 2 years while sanctioning of special promotion post scale -ll, on completion of 24 years of service ignoring the fact that the petitioner is left over service of only 1 year, and also issued recovery proceedings vide Rc.No.13- A4t2O17, dated 1OlO7l2O20, recovering the arnount of Rs.99,000/- from the petitioner due to not passing the accounts test and not imposing the same condition to the colleagues of the petitioners as highly illegal, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice against the Article-14 ot our constitution and prays to set aside the recovery proceedings vide Rc.No.13- 4412017, dated 1OlO7l2O20, with a direction to the respondents herein to pay the .a' deducted amount of Rs.99,000/- to the petitioner and also direct the respondents to add the benefit of Spl. Promotion Post Scale-ll, in the pension of the petitioner and also relerase all the consequential monetary benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to suspend the' operation of the recovery proceedings vide Rc.No.13-A412O17, dated 1010712020, with a direction to the respondents herein, to pay the deducted anrount of Rs.99,000/- to the petitioner in respect of the Special Promotion Post Scale-ll, and also add the same benefit in the pension of the petitioner Counsel for tthe Petitioner: SRl. GURRAM SRINIVAS Counsel for llhe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court m;ade the following: ORDER I HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA EEEENq Heard Sri Gurram Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. ".,...to issue an order or direction more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in inserting the condition to the petitioner vide Proc. Rc.No.t3-A4/20L7 dated 03-03-2017, to pass Accounts Test Part-l, within a period of 2 years while sanctioning of special promotion post scale- II, on completion of 24 years of service ignoring the fact that the petitioner is left over service of only 1 year, and also issued recovery proceedings vide Rc.No. L3-A412OL7, dated LO-07-2020, recovering the amount of Rs.99,000/- from the petitioner due to not passing the accounts test and not imposing the same condition to the colleagues of the petitioners as highly illegal, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice against the 2 w.p.No.256r, io)'j A,rticle-14 of our constitution and prays to set aside tlre recovery proceedings vide Rc.No. t3-A4/20t7, dated L0.O7.2020, with a direction to the rr:spondents herein to pay the deducted amount of Rs.99,000/- to the petitioner and also direct the respondents to add the benefit of spl. promotion P'cst scale-Il, in the pension of the petitioner and also release all the consequential monetary br:nefits and pass ......,, 3- ]-he case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Librarian Grade-III on 19.01.1982 and retired on 31.03.201g without promotion, and is receiving a pension of around Rs.41,000/- per month. The petitioner was granted the 24 year special promotion Post scale-Il (sPps-II) in 2017, with a condition to pass the Accounts Test part-I within two years, fairing which increm,ents would be withheld. The petitioner claims this condition was not imposed in earlier AAS scales or in similar cases of colleagues who now receive higher pensions. Aggriev'ed by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. ) ,"t I 3 SN,J W.P.No.25593 2023 A) resoondent No.3-the Director of Public Libraries, Telanqana vide proceedings Rc.No. 13-A4^/2O17, dated :*,; l I I extracted hereunder: "Sri A.Nampalli, Librarian Grade - III, Zilla grandhalaya Samsha, Karimnagar is appointed to the Special Promotion Post Scale II on completion of 24 years of service, subject to condition that ["he should pass the Accounts Test Paft - I within the period of two years from the date of DPL proceedings of sanction of Spl. Promotion Post Scale If, failing which he shall not be eligible to draw future increments in the time scale of pay applicable to him, till he qualify the accounts test for Subordinate Officers Part - I]. The receipt of these proceedings should be acknowledged forthwith. " 4 SN,J W.P.No.25593 2023 B) herein in the oresent case issued bv the 4th "it is submitted that respondents in inserting the condition to the petitioner vide proc. Rc.No.L3-A412017, dated 03.03.2017 to pass Accounts Test part-I within a period of 2 years while sanctioning of Special Promotion Post Scale-II on completion of 24 years of service ignoring the fact that the petition'er has left over service of only 1 years is correct and also issued recovery proceedings vide Proc. Rc.No. L3-A4l2Ot7, dated 10.07 .2020 recovering the amount of Rs.36,323/- from the petitioner due to not passing the accounts test part-I is also correct, but as per the audit objection raised by the District Audit Authority." ) c) 5 SN,J W.P.No.25693_2023 *5. In Shyam Babu Verma's case (Supra), this Court while observing that the petitioners- therein were not entitled to the higher pay scales, had cbme'to the conclusion that since the amount has already been paid to the petitioner, for no fault of theirs, the said amount, shall not be recovered by the respondent-Union of India. The observations made by this Court in the said case are as under: "Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.330- 480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January L, L973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-560 already beqn paid to them.

6. In Sahib Ram Verma's case (Supra), this Court once again held that although the appellant-therein did not possess the required educational qualification, yet the Principal granting him the relaxation, had paid his salary 6 SN,J W.P.No.25593-2023 on the revised pay scale. This Court further observed that this was not on account of mis- representation made by the appellant but by a mistake committed by the Principal. In a fact situation of that nature, the Court was pleased to observe that the amount already paid to the appellant need not be recovered. In the words of the Court: "Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. t{owever, it is not on account of any misr.epresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which appellant cannot be held to be fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant."

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit:; that the respondents sanctioned the Special Promotion Pay Scale (SPPS) on completion of 18 and 24 years of service in the case of the petitioner's colleagues vide Proc. Rc.No.0O8-A4/2013 dated 10.01.2013. However, no condition was imposed on those colleagues to pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. The said employees, who were granted SPPS on completion of 18 and 24 years, received all the attendant benefits, retired from ,,\ 7 SN,J W.P.No.25693 2023 service, and are drawing higher pensions than the petitioner. In contrast, due to the imposition of the said condition and deduction of benefits in the case of the petitioner, he is receiving a lower pension than his similarly situated colleagues, which is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Article t4 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the impugned proceedings of respondent No.3, the petitioner was informed that petitioner is not eligible to draw the time scale of pay applicable to him, even if he qualifies the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. It was further stated in the impugned proceedings that any excess amount, if paid to the petitioner due to erroneous fixation of pay, would be recovered from him without prior notice and that such recovery would be made in lump sum if noticed in the future. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, contending that the petitioner retired from service on

31.03.2018 and that there cannot be any recovery of the amounts atready released to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the plea taken by the respondents in the 8 SN,J W.P.No.25693-2023 counter affidavit does apply to Grade-I officers, but the petitioner is not a Grade-I officer, as he belongs to Grade- III, and therefore, no such recovery can be made from the petitioner.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader places reliance on the averments made in paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 in W.P No.27387 of 202:i which had been filed by the petitioner thereunder with an identical prayer as sought for on behalf of the petitioner herein and contends that, in view of the petitioner not having passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers; Part-I as on the date of the proceedings vide Proc' Rc.No. 1.3-A4|2OL7, dated 10.07.2020, the action was taken in accordance with the audit objection raised by the District Audit AuthoritY.

7. A. bare perusal of the Apex court judgment (referred to and extracted above) reported in 2ot4 (8) SCC 883, clearly indicates that the Apex Court very clearly observed in the :;aid case that the petitioners thereunder had received the scerle of Rs.330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 w.e.f., January l, L973, it shall only be just and proper not to Mffiffi ffil':r:F; ,*sry/ .&r-i 7i 9 SN,J W.P.No.25593_2023 recover any excess amount which has arready been paid to them. 8' This Court opines that the petitioner herein is enti,ed for the rerief as sought for in the present writ petition, in view of the specific observations made by the Hon,bre Apex court in the judgment reported in (2014) B scc Bg3, *state of punjab and otherc vs;. Rafiq Masih (whitewasher)", dated og.o7.zor4 (referred to and extracted above). It is also admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that petitioner was not put on any prior notice prior to initiating recovery of amounts from the petitioner and this court opines that the said action of the respondents is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and therefore this couft opines that petitioner is entiiled for the grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 9 a a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the rearned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioner and the rearned 10 SN,J W.P.No.25693-2023 Assistarnt Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The averments made at paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit filed in w.P No.27387 0t 2023 (,n behalf ,of respondent No.4 (referred to and .extracted above),, d) The contents of the order impugned dated o3.o3.21o17 vide Rc.No.13 -A4l2Ot7 of the Director of public Libraries, Telangana, Hyderabad (referred to and exllracted above), e) The observations of the Judgment of the Apex court in ..state of Puniab. and others vs. Rafiq Masih" reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883 (Whitewasher) (referred to and extracted above), f) Tlhe fact that the petitioner retired on superannuation on 3 1.O3.2018, g) The Proceedings No.13-A412(}17 LO.O?.|2O2O issued to the petitioner herein, Dated The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order issued by respondent No.3 the Director of 11 SN,J W.P.No.2569t-2023 Public Libraries, Telangana, vide proceedings Rc.No.13-A4l2OL7, dated O3.O3.2O!7, is hereby set aside, duly taking note of the fact as borne on record that petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2018' The respondents are directed to release all consequential monetary benefits due to the petitioner and to refund the amounts deducted from the petitioner's account, without issuing any prior n6tice to the petitioner in clear violation of principles of natural justice, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. HoWever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed \ To, Sd/.A.JAYASREE REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad Secretariat, Hyderabad.

1. Ihe Principal Secretary, (PE.L|B) Dept., Telangana Secretariat. Hvderabad. 2. The Principal secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Tedngbna 3. The Director of Public Libraries, Government of rerangana, Nalgunz, 4. The Zilla Grandalaya samstha, Karimnagar. Rep. by its secretarv. 5. One CC to SRt. GURRAM SR|N|VAS Advocat<i tOpUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court f<ir tfre State of Telangana at 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI BM & PMK 6 HIGH GOURT DATED i111O712025 ctrtrm u 06 ttu 2t2E WP.No.25693 of 2023 * ) : i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0\ I \ 3r