APHC010375392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19382/2025 Between: 1. V SURESH KUMAR, S/O LATE V.Z. DHYRIAM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCCHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, (RTD.), APSPDCL, TIRUPATHI, R/O D.NO. 95/22-20, SRI POTTI SRI RAMULU NAGAR, RIMS ROAD, KADAPA - 516004. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSPDCL, TIRUPATHI, D. NO. 19-13/65/A, TIRUCHANUR ROAD, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUPATHI. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, HRD, APSPDCL, TIRUPATHI, D. NO. 19-13/65/A, TIRUCHANUR ROAD, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUPATHI. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAND C, APSPDCL, TIRUPATHI, D. NO. 19-13/65/A, TIRUCHANUR ROAD, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUPATHI. 5. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER PENSION AND IR, APSPDCL, TIRUPATHI, D. NO. 19-13/65/A, TIRUCHANUR ROAD, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUPATHI. 6. THE PAY OFFICER, APSPDCL, TIRUPATHI, D. NO. 19-13/65/A, 2 TIRUCHANUR ROAD, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUPATHI. 7. THE GENERAL MANAGER, R AND LA, APSPDCL, TIRUPATHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the memo vide Memo No. CMD/CGM/HRD/GM//HR-I/DGM (Pen)/IPO/F. No. 948/D. No. 335/24, dt. 11- 06-2024 issued by the respondent No.2 wherein an amount of Rs.3,78,000/- as to be recovered towards Canara Bank Personal Loan and an amount of Rs.20,61,740/- has to be withhold towards cancellation of pay anomaly from the terminal benefits as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors Vs State of Bihar reported in 2009 (3) see 475 and consequently Set-aside the memo vide Memo No. CMD/CGM/HRD/GM//HR-I/DGM (Pen)/IPO/F. No. 948/D. No. 335/24, dt. 11- 06-2024 issued by the respondent No.2 and further directed the respondents to release the retirement benefits to the petitioner forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay the operation of Memo No. CMD/CGM/^RD/GM/ZHR-I/DGM (Pen)/IPO/F. No. 948/D. No. 335/24, dt. 11-06-2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner served in the 2nd respondent as Chief General Manager and opted for VRS. The petitioner retired on 20.04.2024 after serving for 35 years. The 2nd respondent had issued proceedings dated 06.05.2023, whereby the list of employees along with the dates of retirement were published. The petitioner also was due to be paid the service benefits for the service rendered by him. 2. While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent sent proceedings relating to the pension proposals of the petitioner to the 6th respondent, whereby certain pay anomalies relating to the year 1991 are referred to, and it was required to recover the additional pay which was credited to the petitioner on account of the pay anomalies referred to from 15.01.1991. 3. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 24.04.2024, had computed the service benefits due and payable and also determined that the respondents would have to withhold an amount of Rs.3,78,000/- towards Canara Bank personal loan and further withhold an amount of Rs.20,61,740/- towards cancellation of pay anomaly from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposal to withhold amounts which are allegedly created in excess on account of the mistake committed by the department is not permissible and relies on the 4 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar1. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.6862 of 2011, whereby a similar issue fell for consideration, and this Court had allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings therein. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a detailed counter is filed and that the respondents are entitled to withhold the amounts when excess is found to have been credited. It is also submitted that the respondents have the right to withhold the pension either in full or in part if so required under Article 470 of Civil Service Regulations, which are adopted by the respondents. It is also submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted the excess amount received and had submitted a letter on 23.05.2024 seeking indulgence of the respondents for recovering the same in 84 installments during the span of 7 years of his pension period at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month. Further, 25% of the recoverable amount was accepted to be recovered by the respondents. 7. It is submitted that the respondents have also effected the recovery as per the instructions received by them. It is further submitted that the petitioner was earlier suspended in the year 1993 and subsequently was reappointed, and the petitioner also suffered a punishment of deferment of one increment 1 2009 (3) SCC 475 5 with cumulative effect during the year 2009–2010. Subsequently, the said punishment was modified as withholding of one increment without cumulative effect on 05.01.2010. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the attempt of the respondents in trying to recover Rs.3,78,000/- which is due to Canara Bank is not permissible, as they are not an authorized agency of Canara Bank for recovery. It is also submitted that the respondents’ attempt to recover the additional amount paid is an irrational act and as such the said proposal is without any basis. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 10. The short point for consideration is whether the respondents would be permitted under law to recover and withhold the service benefits of the petitioner due and payable on account of the petitioner opting for VRS after serving for 35 years. The reason assigned for the proposed recovery is that the petitioner has stood as a guarantor for a personal loan with Canara Bank with an exposure of Rs.3,78,000/-, and that the respondents are withholding an amount of Rs.20,61,740/- towards cancellation of pay anomaly from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. The proposed recovery on account of wrongly crediting excess amounts is not permissible under law. The impugned proceedings are hereby set aside. 6 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih2 examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee in the event of any proposed recovery of any wrongfully credited amounts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had summarized the following situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and 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 five 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 arbitrary to such an extent, as would 2 2015 (4) SCC 334 7 far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 12. On the facts of this case, the petitioner had retired by opting for VRS after serving for 35 years. Following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside. Making it clear to the respondents to release the service benefits due payable to the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 05.05.2026 PNS