IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: A (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 2676 OF 2019 Between: 1. A Lakshmi Koteswaramma, W/o.Malleswara Rao Aged about 55 years, Occ: Assistant Line Man R/o.Yarrabalem, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Palagani Seshamma, W/o.Narasimha Rao, Aged about 55 years, R/o.Yarrabalem, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. Southern Distribution Company, (APSPDCL), Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Tirupathi, Ghittoor District. 2. The Superintending Engineer (Operations) APSPDCL, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Divisional Engineer, Electrical, Operation, APSPDCL, Town-1 Division, 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of writ mandamus, declaring the impugned Letters vide Lr.No.DEE/0/TI/GNT/ADM/JAO/JA/PEN-1/D.NO. /18 Dt. //2018, of the 3rd respondent, ordering recovery of alleged excess payments mentioned therein, from the family pension of the petitioners, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount with interest @12 %p.a., grant cost of the proceedings. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 recovery of the alleged excess payments from the family pension of the petitioners, pursuant to the vide Lr.No.DEE/O/TI/GNT/ADM/JA0/3A/PEN-1/D.NO. /18 impugned Letters Dt. / /2018, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V V SATISH The Court made the following: ORDER Al>HC010058722019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 2676/2019 Between: A Lakshmi Koteswaramma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Southern Distribution Company and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): l.M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VV SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) ...RESPONDENT(S) 2.. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: ..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ mandamus declaring the impugned Letters vide Lr.No.DEE/O/TI/GNT/ADM/JAO/JA/PENl/D.NO /18 Dt. / /2018 of the 3 respondent ordering recovery of alleged excess payments mentioned therein from the family pension of the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount with interest 12 percent p.a. and grant cost of the proceedings." 2. Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioners and rd learned Standing Counsel for Respondent-Corporation. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners were appointed in respondent-Corporation on compassionate grounds due to the death of their respective husbands and they are getting family pension 2 from the respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.3 issued a letter to the petitioners stating that the family pension was miscalculated and ordered for recovery of the excess amount drawn by petitioners in instalment basis. Learned counsel would submit that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Raflq Masih & others^ excess amount which is alleged to have been paid to the employees cannot be recovered. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents-Corporation vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the authorities of the respondent- Corporation wrongly calculated the family pension of the Petitioners and issued the impugned proceedings for recovery of the excess amounts from the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that it is a mistake of the office while calculating the amount. The Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. At this stage, it is beneficial to extract the judgment in Rafiq’s case (supra), wherein, with regard to the permissibility of the employer for recovery from the employees, it was held as under: “12. 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-Ill and Class-IV service (or Group 'C and Group 'D' service), (il) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696 3 (Hi) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been - before the order of made for a period in excess of five years 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. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the decision in Rafiq’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Court enumerated the circumstances under which recovery of such Apex excess payment is not tenable under law. mention that, subsequent to the judgment of the 7. It is pertinent to Hon’ble Court in Rafiq’s case (supra), the Government of India had issued a Public Sector Enterprises to follow the directions issued in the memo to all said judgment employees. Further, Court in Jogeswar Sahoo & Others vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others^, considered the case of the Stenographers in District Judiciary of with regard to the recovery of any excess amount from the by reiterating the above judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Cuttack, Orissa with regard to the same issue. 8. In the backdrop of the legal position referred to supra, petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds and are working in non-executive posts and getting family pension. It is not their case that they have withdrawn ^ 2025 INSC 449 4 the amounts by misrepresentation or by playing fraud. It is only the mistake the part of the office in calculating the family pension, which resulted i issuance of the impugned proceedings for on in recovery of the alleged excess which is not tenable in law and unwarranted. Hence, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.3 are liable to be set aside. family pension from the petitioners 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the i Proceedings issued by Respondent No. order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous impugned 3, are set aside. There shall be no petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. SRINIVAS assistant registrar To, sectjon officer Company, ^ DiSrict^^^*^'^*®^^"^^ Engineer (Operations) APSPDCL, Guntur, Guntur ^ Dh/^siorll^Gunfur.^^^'"^®'^’ Operation, APSPDCL Town-1 4. One CC to Sri M Pitchaiah Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri V V Satish (Standing Counsel) Advocate 6. Three CD Copies [OPUC] TF HIGH COURT DATED;01/05/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.2676 of 2019 I' ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS