APHC010439522005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15975. 17106 & 17908 OF 2005 WRIT PETITIONNO: 15975 OF 2005 Between: G. Vijay Kumar Raju, S/o. G. Jayanandam, Aged about 37 years, S.G. Teacher, Lutheran High School ( AELC), Bhimavaram, R/o. Bhimavaram, W.G. District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Govt, of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt of A.P., Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, E.G. District. 4. The District Educational Officer, W.G. District, Eluru. 5. The Lutheran High School (AELC), Bhimavaram, W.G. District., Rep. by its Head Master. 6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G. District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the attachment orders dt. 11.07.2005 under Section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and consequentially direct respondents to restrain from proceeding further in the matter lA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 20304 OF 2005 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to stay all the proceedings pursuant to issuance of Notice under Section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE APHC010431862005 WRIT PETITION NO: 17106 OF 2005 Between: 1. G.K. Chandra Leela, W/o. B. Jeevan Kumar, aged about 37 years, Occ. Hindi Pandit (Grade-ll) Lutheran High School, (AELC), Bhimavaram R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. Ch. Rajeswari, W/o. Nehamea, aged about 37 years. Record Assistant Lutheran High School, (AELC), Bhimavaram R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. p n a-A-^ > -/tf 3. E. Prakasa Rani, W/o. T. Kumar, aged about 34 years, S.G.Teacher R/o. Doragari Thota, Lutheran High School, (AELC), Bhimavaram R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ...Petitioners AND 1. Govt, of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department Secretariat Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt, of AP Saifabad Hyderabad. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada East Godavari District. 4. The District Educational Officer, West Godavari District Eluru. 5. The Lutheran High School AELC, Rep. by its Head Master R/o. Bhimavaram West Godavari District. 6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram Mandal West Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction or an order, or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by ,declaring action of the 6th respondent in issuing the attachment orders dt.11-07-2005 under section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and consequently direct Respondents to restrain from proceeding further in the matter lA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 21759 OF 2005 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to stay al the proceedings pursuant to instance of Notice under section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE APHC010457592005 WRIT PETITION NO: 17908 OF 2005 Between: 1. P. Sujith Kumar, S/o. P.Mechale, Occ. Secondary Grade Teacher, R/o.Rest House Teacher's colony, Lutheran High School (AELC), Bhimavaram, R/o. Bhimavaram, W.G. District. 2. T.E. Krupanand, S/o.T.Babu Rao, aged about 37 years, Occ. Telugu Pandit (Grade-ll), R/o.Rest House Teacher's Colony, Lutheran High School (AELC), Bhimavaram, R/o.Bhimavaram, W.G. District. ...Petitioners AND 1. Govt of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt of A.P., Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, E.G. District. 4. The District Educational Officer, W.G. District, Eluru. T f 5. The Lutheran High School AELC, Bhimavaram, W.G. District, Rep by its Head Master. 6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G. District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 6th Respondent in issuing the attachment orders dt. 11-7-2005 under section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and consequentially direct respondents to restrain from proceedings further in the natter lA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 22788 OF 2005 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the Proceedings pursuant to issuance of Notice under Section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Common Order: 1 APHC010439522005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENTiTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION Nos: 15975.17106 & 17908 of 2005. WRIT PETITION No.15975/2005 Between: VIJAY KUMAR RAJU, W.G.DISTRICT., S/0. G. JAYANANDAM, S.G. TEACHER, LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL ( AELC), BHIMAVARAM, R/0. BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DISTRICT. 1.G. ...PETITIONER AND OF A P SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT AND 5 OTHERS, DEPARTMENT, 1.GOVT SCHOOL EDUCATION HYDERABAD. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVT OF A.P., SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, 3.THE KAKINADA, E.G.DISTRICT. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, W.G.DISTRICT, ELURU. AELC, BHIMAVARAM 5.THE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL W.G.DISTRICT., REP. BY ITS HEAD MASTER. 6.THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER W.G.DISTRICT. BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, ...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 in the nature of writ of the action of the 6th respondent in issuing the Mandamus by declaring attachment orders dt. 11.07.2005 under Section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to mo ■VU^PMos. 15975,17106 17908 of2025 2 the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and consequentially direct respondents to restrain from proceeding further in the matter and to pass such Other order or further orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2005fWPMP 20304 OF 2005 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 direct the respondents to stay ail the proceedings pursuant to Notice under Section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR EDUCATION 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO: 17106/2005 Between: 1.G.K.CHANDRA LEELA,W.G.DIST AND 2 OTHERS, W/0. B. JEEVAN KUMAR HINDI PANDIT (GRADE-II) LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, (AELC), BHIMAVARAM R/0. BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2.CH. RAJESWARI, W/0. NEHAMEA RECORD ASSISTANT LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, (AELC), BHIMAVARAM R/0. BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. issuance of 3.E.PRAKASA RANI, W/0. T. KUMAR S.G.TEACHER LUTHERAN HIGH DORAGARI SCHOOL, (AELC), BHIMAVARAM R/0. THOTA,BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 50 .WV3''os. 15975,17106 el.' 17908 of2025 3 1.G0VT OF AP HYD AND 5 OTHERS, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION GOVT. OF AP SAIFABAD HYDERABAD. 3.THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ELURU. 5.THE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL AELC, REP.BY ITS HEAD MASTER R/0. BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6.THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 direction or an order, or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring action of the 6th respondent in issuing the attachment orders dt. 11-07-2005 under section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act, as arbitrary,illegal,contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and consequently direct Respondents to restrain from proceeding further in the matter and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2005fWPMP 21759 OF 2005 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 direct the respondents to stay al the proceedings pursuant to instance of Notice under section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. i.:- 'RCJ .W<P.U^ros. 15975,17106 eZ 17908 of2025 4 lA 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 condone the delay of 175 days in filing the above I.A. for restoration of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 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 set aside the order dt.22-07-2024 under which the above writ petition dismissed for default and restore the writ petition to file for disposal on merits. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR EDUCATION 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO: 17908/2005 was Between: 1.P.SUJITH KUMAR, BHIMVARAM W.G.DIST AND ANOTHER S/O.P.MECHALE, SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER, HOUSE TEACHER'S COLONY, LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL (AELC), BHIMAVARAM, R/O.BHIMAVARAM, W.D.DISTRICT. R/O.REST 2.T.E.KRUPANAND,, S/O.T.BABU RAO, TELUGU PANDIT (GRADE-II), R/O.REST HOUSE TEACHER'S COLONY, LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL (AELC), BHIMAVARAM, R/O.BHIMAVARAM W.D.DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND ^3 •.W(p.'Mos. 15975,17106 lA. 17908 of2025 5 1.G0VT OF A P REP BY ITS PRL SEC SCHOOL EDU DEPT HYD AND SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, 5, HYDERABAD. 2.THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVT OF A.P., SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 3.THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KAKINADA, E.G.DISTRICT. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, W.G.DISTRICT,, ELURU. 5.THE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL AELC, BHIMAVARAM W.G.DISTRICT, REP BY ITS HEAD MASTER. 6.THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT. ...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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 6th Respondent in issuing the attachment orders dt. 11-7-2005 under section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and consequentially direct respondents to restrain from proceedings further in the natter and to pass such other order or further orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 22788 OF 2005 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 all the Proceedings pursuant to issuance of Notice under Section 8 of Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders. 30 ‘.WtPMs. 15975,17106 ^17908 of2025 6 lA 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 condone the delay of 175 days in filing the above I.A. for restoration of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 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 set aside the order dt.22-07-2024 under which the above writ petition dismissed for default and restore the writ petition to file for disposal on merits. Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR EDUCATION 2.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION COMMON ORDER These writ petitions were filed declaring the action of respondent no.6- The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram, in issuing attachment order under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act. was 2. Inasmuch as the petitioners worked as Teachers in one school and as these writ petitions arise similar question of law, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 3. The contents of the writ petitions can briefly be summarized as under: ■.W^T.'Nos. 15975.17106 <i.(I790S of2025 7 That Government of A.P. admitted all the posts of 5^^ respondent school into Grant-In-Aid, which is a Christian Minority Institution got the status as such vide G.O.Ms.No.23, Minority Welfare Department, dated 10.03.1999. The petitioners, who belongs to Christian minority community were appointed as Teachers in the school by the duly constituted committee of the management and thereafter proposals were sent to tbe government for absorption of the posts held by them. The said proposals were kept in abeyance by respondents on the ground that the litigation with regard to implementation of Rule of Reservation is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Assailing the proceedings vide Rc.No.l38/B3/99, dated 15.10.2001 of the District Educational, Officer, petitioners filed writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.26317 of 2001 and 22115 of 2002, wherein an interim stay of the proceedings was granted and ultimately allowed the writ petitions in terms of the judgment in Government of A.P. vs. P.Thirumala Devi, reported in 2001(3)DT(AP) 21 setting aside the direction given to the managements to follow rule of reservation. Thereafter, the Government framed A.P.Minority Education Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988 and as per Rule 12(6), since the institution is a Christian Minority Institution and the petitioners belong to Christian Minority community, they are entitled for absorption. Later, the Government issued Memo dated 08.12.2003 directing •.W(p.9^os.l5975,17106 ej,' 17908 of2023 8 the concerned to continue the petitioners in the post held by them until further orders as the SLP is pending consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court and accordingly they continued in the post. Subsequently, the Government approved the action of the management of the school and pursuantly the District Educational Officer issued orders absorbing the services of the petitioners into grant-in-aid post from the date of, their initial appointment. Thereafter, the petitioners opened bank accounts and respondent no.5-school opened the service registers of petitioners and forwarded them to respondent no.4-District Educational Officer, for recording necessary entries and verification. Later, the Government released the arrears of salary to the petitioners and management had deposited the arrears of salary in the bank accounts of the petitioners and later the petitioners were paid salaries upto February,2005. Thereafter, instead of paying salary, the petitioners received notice dated 11.07.2005 issued by respondent no.6- the Mandal Revenue Officer, purporting to be under section-8 of the Revenue Recovery Act contemplating to attach their properties to the extent of the sum mentioned therein stating that the said attachment orders were issued as per the letter of District Educational Officer, West Godavari, dated 25.06.2005. The said notice was not preceded by any notice as mandated under Revenue Recovery Act. The action of the Government in issuing notice for recovery of already <RCJ ‘.Wcp.’Nos. 15975,17106 <A, 17908 of 2025 9 paid salary instead of paying arrears of the salary entitled to by the petitioners that too in utter violation of the procedure contemplated under Revenue Recovery Act is highly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Hence, the !' impugned notice is liable to be set aside. 4. The respondent no.4-District Educational Officer, filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the writ petition inter alia contending that upon receipt of orders from the Government in Memo dated 27.12.2004 approving the appointment of the petitioners as teachers in Lutheran Aided High School, Bhimavaram and also the Executive orders of the Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad vide proceedings Rc.No.483/Dl-2/2003-l, dated 17.02.2005 and also as per the proceedings Rc.No.64-Al/2002, dated 01.02.2005 of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, amounts were released by means of teaching grants including arrears through the bank accounts of the individuals concerned. That thereafter it came to light through G.O.Ms.No.5987/Vig.2/20 05-2, dated 25.04.2005 that the said Government memo wherein the appointment orders said to have been approved by the Government is forged/fake. That though the petitioners were working in the school against the posts, which were admitted to Grant-in-Aid, as their appointments were not approved by the Department, they are not entitled for salary from Grant-in-Aid and hence, the 15975,17106 e£ 17908 of2025 10 amounts erroneously paid to the teachers need to be recovered from them. Accordingly, the District Collector issued orders to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram to recover the amounts as per the Revenue Recovery Act. That there is neither arbitrariness nor violation of principles of natural justice, as alleged by the petitioners. The writ petitions being meritless are to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sr/ S.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel, representing Sri S.N.Chidambara Sastry, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader for School Education. 6, Sri S.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that while issuing a writ of quo warranto there cannot be any direction for recovery of the sum, since a person cannot be directed to pay back the sum paid to him towards salary, as denial of pay for the services rendered tantamount to forced labour inhibited under Article 23 of the Constitution and therefore, the proceedings initiated under Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of already paid salary to the petitioners for the services rendered by them is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution. He would further contend that issuance of notice under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act without issuing any preceding notice affording an opportunity to the petitioners to explain and putforth their contentions as mandated under ■l^.‘‘P.3^os. 15975,17106 <£17908 of2025 11 the Revenue Recovery Act itself is not only against the scheme of the Act but against the principle of natural justice. Hence, the proceedings be declared null and void. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and other^. 7. On the other hand, Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that the petitioners forged and fabricated Government Memo dated 25.04.2025 as if their appointment orders have been approved by the Government and pursuant thereto the teaching grants including arrears were paid to the petitioners and upon noticing the fraud played by the petitioners in producing forged government memo, the District Collector issued orders to recover the amounts and pursuantly the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated action under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. He would further contend that the petitioners can submit their explanation to the attachment notices impugned in these writ petitions and without doing so, the petitioners resorted to file the writ petitions, which is impermissible, as such, the writ petitions being not maintainable are liable to be dismissed. He would further \ (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 161 <RCJ 'M^'P.SVbi. 15975,17106 <£ 17908 of2025 12 contend that there is no illegality nor procedural impropriety in the action sought to be impugned in the writ petitions. The writ petitions being meritless, deserve dismissal. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners rendered their services as teachers in respondent no.5-The Lutheran High School (AELC), Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and for the said services they were paid salary. The notices under Section-8 of the Revenue Recovery Act were issued for realization of the salary paid to the petitioners for the services rendered by them as Teachers in respondent no.5 school. 10. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when an appointment is admitted and the incumbent functions in the post and neither suspended nor removed from service, he is entitled to get salary, for it is his legal right and it is the duty of the employer to pay it as per the terms and conditions of the appointment. Recovery of salary would amount to deprivation of payment while the incumbent was holding the post and had worked. When an appointment is nullified by issue %a .Wip.^^os. 15975,17106 ,417908 of2025 13 of writ of quo warranto by the Court, neither the employer can recover the amount nor the Court can direct for recovery of the same. 11. In the instant case, the amounts referred to and sought to be recovered in the attachment orders is the amount paid to the petitioners as salary for the services rendered by them in respondent no.5-School. In view of the observations made in the above referred citation, recovery of the amount paid as salary to the petitioners for the services rendered by them in the school, would be illegal. 12. The arguments advanced by the counsel further made it clear that the respondent no.-5 school had paid the amounts covered under the attachment notices. 13. Be that as it may, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the salary paid to an employee for the services rendered by him cannot be recovered if he was subsequently suspended or removed, the attachment notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act are unsustainable. 14. In view of the observations made in the decision referred to supra. the writ petitions are to be allowed setting aside the attachment notices issued under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act. ■jN- ‘RC3 'M/:<P.3Vbi. 15975,17106 e£ 17908 of2025 14 15. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the attachment notices issued to the petitioners under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt of A.P., Ibrahimpatnam 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, E.G. District. 4. The District Educational Officer, W.G. District, Eluru. 5. The Head Master, Lutheran High School AELC, Bhimavaram, W.G. District. 6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G. District. 7. One CC to SRI S N CHIDAMBARA SASTRY Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCS to GP FOR EDUCATION High Court of Andhra [OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies Pradesh gsg ( r i 'i HIGH COURT DATED; 07/08/2025 COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION NO: 15975, 17106 & 17908 OF 2005 ALLOWING THE WP’S WITHOUT COSTS