APHC010526712018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24976/2018 Between: 1. K. UMA MAHESWARA RAO, K.UMA MAHESWARA RAO S/O. KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETD. TELUGU PANDIT GR.II, ATZINGER UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BERIPET, NAIDUPET POST AND MANDAL, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-2-14 GANDHINAGAR, VENKATAGIRI ROAD, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT SPSR 2. KUDUMU LEELA CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. LATE K.UMA MAHESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O.OLD VENKATAGIRI ROAD, NAIDUPET (PO M), TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 3. S. USHA RANI SARAVANAN, D/O. LATE UMA MAHESWARA RAO, W/O.SARAVANAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O.GUDAVANJERI, PONNERI TQ, TIRUVALLURU DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. 4. SARAVANI JOTHI, D/O. LATE UMA MAHESWARA RAO, W/O.JOTHI, AGED ABOUT TO 42 YEARS, R/O. KANAKAVALLI PURAM VILLAGE, PONNERI TQ, TAMILNADU. PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS TO THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 06.05.2025 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN WP NO.24976 OF 2018. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. NELLORE 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, IBRAHIRNPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ABBE, FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND A.P. SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 5. THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, NAIDUPETA, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. THE CORRESPONDENT, ATZINGER UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAIDUPETA POST AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 8. THE DISTRICT AUDIT OFFICER, STATE AUDIT, NELLORE ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M V NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 2. TENEPALLI NIRANJAN ( SC FOR CENT GOVT) ) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the impugned proceedings Roc.No.1210/A4/2017 dated 31-3-2017 issued by the 8th respondent by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to repay the deducted amount of Rs.1,57,089/- with interest and costs from 1-7-2008 to till date to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri M.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that during pendency of the present writ petition, the original Petitioner died and his Legal 3 Representatives i.e., Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners are entitled to the release of the amount that was withheld by the respondent authorities from the pensionary benefits of Petitioner No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners are entitled to the said amount, which was deducted from their pension, along with interest. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the amount received by Petitioner No.1 was not by misrepresenting the facts or committing fraud. Learned counsel would further submit that the present matter is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.32761 of 2018 and batch, dated 29.04.2025. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education would submit that the Petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as Telugu Pandit Grader-II (Telugu) on 12.06.1980 and his pay was upgraded in Language Pandit Grade-I. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1 retired from service on 31.10.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. The orders passed by Respondent No.4 and the consequential proceedings passed by Respondent No.8 are in accordance with law. It is submitted that the Petitioners challenged the consequential orders passed by Respondent No.8 but failed to challenge the original orders passed by Respondent No.4. There is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, it is a case where Petitioner No.1 withdrew the amount as pay and allowances. Petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as Telugu Pandit Grade-II 4 on 12.06.1980 and while working as Grade-II Telugu Pandit, he was sanctioned Grade-I scale on 01.04.2005 as he was qualified for Grade-I post. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih & others1, with regard to the permissibility of the employer for recovery from the employees, held as under: “It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from 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 far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 6. In the instant case, admittedly, Petitioner No.1 retired from service on 31.10.2009 and the impugned order of recovery of excess payment is dated 31.03.2017, which is seven years later than his retirement. In such circumstances, Petitioner No.1 falls under the purview of the judgment in Rafiq’s case (supra). 1 AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696 5 7. In that view, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Roc.No.1210/A4/2017 dated 31-3-2017 issued by Respondent No.8, are set aside and the Respondents are directed to repay the deducted amount of Rs.1,57,089/- to the Petitioner within a period not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.06.2025 Dinesh 6 THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24976/2018 Date: 16.06.2025 Dinesh