S. Ranaaiah v. eighteen Rupees Only) from the pension of the

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 suspend the impugned proceedings No. Mktg. Sec./Non-G.O./ Dues Recoveryi0g/3 4t411 , daled 2O-B-2OOI issued by the 2'd respondent by recovering the Rs. I ,0001 (One Thousand Only) and also, an amount of Rs. 3,09,318l (Three.Laks Nine Thousand and Three hundred and eighteen Rupees Only) from the pension of the petitioner because, the petitioner was retired on 31-8-2009 and release all the pensionary benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. SUDHAKAR REDDY (sc FoR HANDLOOMS WEAVERS COOP SOCT LTD) The Court made the following: ORDER :.rl //// ,,i' I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.5521 of 201O ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the foliowing relief: "... to issue on oppropriote writ order or direction preferobly one in the nature of Writ of lAandamus to declore the impugned proceedings No. lAktg. Sec./Non- G .O. I Dues Recovery I A9 / 341 41 1 , doted 20.08.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent by recovering fhe Rs. 1,AO0/- (One Thousand Only) ond'also an amount of Rs.3,09,3181- (Three Lakhs, Nine Thousond and Three hundred ond eighteen Rupees Only) from the pension of the petitioner because the petitioner was retired on 31.08.2009 is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonoble and also in violation of Art. 14 to 16 ond 21 of Constitution of lndia ond set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to poy the Full Pension ond with oll pensionery benefits for which the petitioner is entitled and pass...."

2. Heard Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd., appearing for respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follow-s 2 (i) The petitioner was initially appointed as an Apprentice (salesman) on 12.O8.1977 at Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, and thereafter, regularized the petitioner,s services in the year 1 980. Later, the petitioner worked in several sales emporiums in the State with the utmost satisfaction of all his superiors. While things stood thus, the 2"d respondent issued a circular by way of a non-G.O., datedl3.O7.2oo 1, instructing all the Managers who were working under the control ol the 2.a respondent by stating to se1l the clothes on the debit system to the Government employees ald also fixing the targets to the managers who were working in the sales emporium under the control of 2"d respondent. (ii) The 2"d respondent issued an order vide proceedings dated 28.07.2008 by making several members of the said recovery order, in which the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.16 and the due amount against the petitioner was shown as Rs.68,750/- and while pending the same, the respondents issued proceedings dated 20.08.2O09 stating as under: "All the emplogees are herebg instructed to recouer the Non-G.O. dues bg the end of August, 2OOB and. -l 3 remit thp same, falling uhich the afore said Non- G.O. amount u-till be debited to tlrcir staff personal account and the amounts uill be recouered from their monthtA poA bills from September, 2OO9 ontaards till the entire amount is recortered. And if anA amount is collected from the concerned depanlments the same amount shall be credited to the concerned emplogee personal account'"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the above proceedings, the petitioner is shown at Sl'No' 1' and the due amount against him is shown as Rs'3,09,318/- and the respondents have been silent since 2002 about the recovery of the amount. Moreover, the petitioner is not concerned r,vith the said dues- He further submits that though the petitioner retired from service on 31'OB'2009' till datenoamountu,aspaidtothepetitionertowardsretirement benefits. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition'

5. The respondents have filed a counter stating that under the Non-Govt. Order (Non-G.O-) scheme employees of APCO' on their ou'n risk, take up sale of cloth on credit basis to the employees of reputed undertakings duly obtaining ar undertaking from the employer / pay disbursing officer of the j 4 organization r,r,ill recover the totai amount due as per fixed instalments from the salaries of the concerned employees those who taken the cloth on credit basis and will be remitted to the APCO. They further contended that the responsibility of recovery of the total amount lies on the employee concerned, who is held selling stocks on a credit basis, and if the dues are not recovered in time, it u.ill be recovered from their monthly pay bills as informed to all the staff members vide C.O. circular dt. 13.07.2001. The Non-G.O. sales hxed by the Central Oflice to Warangal Division is Rs.75.OO lakhs and it was re-fixed to the individual sales emporia based on their performance and previous sales etc., of that particular period. The Non-G.O. saies targets were lixed to the Managers SE was Rs.5.0O lakhs. In such particular cases, the concerned Manager will be held responsible for recovering the amounts from them. No doubt, if such a case is brought to the notice of the Divisional Marketing Office, the Divisiona.l Marketing Officer also makes correspondence with the concerned and also takes the required measures for its recovery. The Non- G.O. dues pertain to the 2OO2 2OO3 to 2OO5-2O06 periods, --:r"?,. /' 5 and the Manager has not taken aly pains to recover the amount from the defaulters. Hence, the Manager is held responsible for recovering the dues as per the instalments fixed every month. They further contended that several times, this office has issued instructions through memos and circulars and also informed orally in the Managers' meeting conducted regularly every month to recover the entire due balances of Non-G.O, failing which, the same ',vill be booked to their staff's personal accounts and it will be recovered from their pay bills in instalments, on behalf of the office, arranged to issue legal notices to the defaulters so that they change their attitude and remit the dues to APCO. However, it has not happened due to the lack of follow-up action from the Managers. Arranging the issuing of legal action is one of the measures to recover the due amount, but that does not mean transferring of the entire recovery burden on the office and absolving the employees from the responsibility for its recovery. Since he conducted Non-G.O. sales, it is his responsibility until he recovers the entire due amount, which is incorrect. ! 6 They further contended that the Manager, Manuguru Saies Emporium, has not paid any attention and made any personal efforts lor the recovern of Non-G.O. dues though he has worked for more than (2 1) years at Manuguru Sales Emporium, i.e. up to closure of the SE. It gives an apprehension that the petitioner might have recovered the Non-G.O. dues of Rs.3,09,318.00 from the defaulters and not remitted to the office. He might have used personally use and misappropriated the APEX Society funds. The Petitioner's altitude in discharging of his duties gives this impression since he was quite silent up to his retirement on the Non G.O. dues recovery and aJter retirement, he is demanding not to elfect any recovery of Non G.O. dues amount, lor r.r,hich he was totally responsible.

6. According to the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents, the petitioner had undertaken to sell the cloths to several Corporations such as Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Electricity Department, RTC etc., The circular-Memo, dated O6.ll.2006 issued by the respondents authorities i.e. The Andhra pradesh State W/ '/,' 7 Haldloom Weaver's Co-operative Society Ltd., shows that immediate attention of the Divisional Marketing Officers is drawn to the subject cited. The Non-G.O. dues position is alarming to the tune of Rs. 1,98,87,716/- as on September 2006 and the recovery is found very poor. On 20.08.2009, a notice was issued by the 2.d respondent to seven members and in the said notice, the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.1, his Unit was shown as Manuguru and the Non-G.O. due against him is shown as Rs.3,09,318/-. The said notice also instructed all the employees to recover the Non-G. O.dues by the end of August 2OO8 and remit the same, failing which, the aforesaid Non G.O. amount will be debited to their staff personal account. The amounts will be recovered from their monthly pay bills from September 2009 until the entire amount is recovered. And if any amount is collected from the concerned departments, the same amount shall be credited to the concerned employee's account. 7 . The main contention of the Writ Petitioner is that there 15 nO undertaking given by the petitioner and he \vas only tackling the entire business. Based on the counter, the respondents are assuming that the petitioner might have 8 ( recovered the Non,G.O.dues of Rs.3,O9,3LS/- from the defaulters and not remitted to the office and might have utilized for his personal use and misappropriatecl of the ApEX Society funds. Mere apprehension does not give the respondents any right to recover the same. The respondents have not filed any undertaking given by the petitioner to recover Non-G.O.dues.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the Writ petition was filed in the year 2O1O and there is no interim order. As per the counter of respondents, the Non-G.O.dues are from the year 2002-2003 onwards ald till 20.OB.2OO9 the respondents took no action and just 10 days before the retirement of the petitioner i.e. on 3l .OB.2OO9, issued the said proceedings dated 20.08.2009. When the clothes were sold on a credit basis to the employees of various Corporations, and when the Corporations have not paid the due amounts, how is the petitioner responsible for such dues? More so, in the absence of any undertaking by the petitioner to recover the same, the petitioner cannot be made scapegoat for such laxity on the part of the Corporations which have availed the credit facility. As such, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. ._..--_' To, 9

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allou,ed by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 2O.OB.2OO9 as against the petitioner and the respondents are directed to pay alt pensionery benefits in accordance u'ith lau, r.r,ithin a period of Six Weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shal1 stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD I ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR I SECTION OFFICER

1. The Managing Director, O/o. A.P. State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society ltd. Narayanag uda, 3-5-7 7 0, Hyderabad.

2. The Divisional lvlarketing Officer,, A.P. State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society ltd. Warangal, Warangal District.

3. One CC to Sri C. Raja Sekhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy (SC for Handlooms Weavers Coop SOCT LTD) [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies TJ BSR 6 HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 ORDER WP.No.5521 of 2010 'ri ?ufi i, ) :) j i'ii ?.s t. De spaT t: ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (rI4w