r'\ APHC010130372022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7863 OF 2022 Between; C. Prasad, S/o. C.Narasimhulu, Aged 60 years. Assistant Engineer (Retd), Yerraguntia Sub Division of Mylavaram Division, TBP HLC Circle, Ananathapuram, Ananthapuram District, R/o. D.No. No. 5/1523, Sriram Nagar, Proddatur, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh-516360. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi District, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Engineering Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, H.O.D Buildings Complex, M.G. Road, 0pp. I.G.M. Stadium, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Superintending Engineer, TBP HLC Circle, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Executive Engineer, M.R.C. Division, MV Dam Site, Mylavaram, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. Guntur ...Respondents 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 a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.AB/Ecl/P3(a)/38M dated 8-2-2022 of the 4*'" respondent as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and also Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521, Sahib Ram Verma v. Union of India (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18, Syed Abdul Qadir and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others 2009) 3 SCC 475 and State Of Punjab and Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334 AIR 2014 SC 696 and set-aside the same in so far as recovery is concerned from the Gratuity of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.AB/Ecl/P3(a)/38M dated 8-2-2022 of the 4'^ respondent in so far as recovery is concerned from the Gratuity of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. AVANIJA INUGANTI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: APHC010130372022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7863/2022 Between: C Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AVANIJAINUGANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Ms. Avanija Inuganti, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services II. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as N.M.R. 2. Thereafter, he was converted as Work Charged worker on 01.02.1982. Establishment as Mazdoor with effect from 01.02.1987 vide the proceedings of the respondent dated 30.04.1987. Thereafter, he was retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30.06.2021 as an Assistant Engineer While preparing the pension after regular promotions in between. 2 4 proposals,the respondents pointed out that at the time of conversion from Mazdoor to Work Inspector Grade-IV in the scale of Rs. 1595-3020 with effect from 21.10.1993, the petitioner was allowed pay protection at Rs.1665/-. The said protection was continued even after he had opted to become The 4*'' respondent pointing out the same, vide impugned proceedings, ordered for recovery of the excess pay to the petitioner with effect from 21.10.1993 to 30.06.2021. Hence, the instant writ petition. Government servant. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pay of the petitioner was fixed on 21.10.1993 while converting from Mazdoor to Work Inspector Grade-IV. The same is now sought to be modified after 27 years. It is further contended that it is not within the jurisdiction of the respondents io revise the orders passed after lapse of 27 years, without any notice to the petitioner. It is further argued that it is not the case of the respondents that the alleged excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation made by the petitioner. In the said process of pay fixation, the petitioner was not at his behest. Accordingly, sought for set aside of the impugned proceedings. 4. Respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner’s promotion took place prior to that date i.e., on 21.10.1993, granting pay protection to the petitioner under FR 22 (a) (i) read with FR 22B is not in terms of the Government Memo No.22029/Ser.V2/93-2, dated 28.08.1993. contended that if the petitioner was promoted after 03.02.1997, then he is It is 3 eligible for such benefits. By that time of this pay fixation as Work inspector Grade-iV, the petitioner was working in Work Charged Establishment Cadre for which the Executive Engineer at division level was competent to issue such orders. It is further contended that the discrepancy was carried forward throughout his service at division level as the individual continued in Work Charged Establishment Cadre up to 20.04.2016. It is further stated that the recovery on account of erroneous pay fixation had been mounted by the time of his retirement. It is further contended that although the discrepancy could not be attributed to the petitioner, the 4^^ respondent acting within his jurisdiction sought to rectify the discrepancy by ordering for recovery of excess payment. It is further stated that the petitioner is willing to remit the excess payment, no due certificate would be issued along with pension proposals, without proposing any recovery from the gratuity. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Biharand Others, submits that unless excess payment was on account of misrepresentation or fraud played by the employee and the same account of application of wrong principle by the employer in calculating the pay and allowances, the employees shall not be put to hardship. The learned counsel further refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) and Others, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows: 5. was on case 4 !t 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 employe,r in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we ma,y as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: 18. (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 yea,r of the order of recovery. (Hi) 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. ” Placing reliance of the above, the petitioner sought set aside of the impugned proceedings. 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. From the counter affidavit of the respondents, it is discernible that the impugned proceedings for recovery have been effected on account of the erroneous actions on the part of the respondents. It is admitted by the respondents that the discrepancy can not be attributed to the petitioner. It is further stated that the discrepancy had taken place in 1993 and continued In the said context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Raffiq Masih (white washer), has observed that in case of recovery from an employee where an excess payment has been continuously made for a period of more than five years, the recovery up to 20.04.2016. 5 m. made by the employer is impermissible in law. Following the said principle, theorder impugned is set aside. The 3'^'^ respondent is directed to refund the amount, recovered from the Gratuity of the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the 8. date of the receipt of the order. 9. With the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANTiREGISHRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Engineering Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, H.O.D Buildings Complex, M.G. Road, 0pp. l.G.M. Stadium, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Superintending Engineer, TBP HLC Circle, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Executive Engineer, M.R.C. Division, MV Dam Site, Mylavaram, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Mrs. Avanija Inuganti, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies Cnr f . HIGH COURT \ DATED:28/03/2025 >}■ ORDER WP NO. 7863 OF 2022 I JUL 2025 i m O «>» DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS m