I [ 3458 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) o FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE K ct C’tf: 0- 0‘! O '« tPlu V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 40040 OF 2022 Between; P.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Appaiah, Aged about 60 years, Retired Employee, R/o.D.No.42-60-24, Block No.59, Near Ganganamma Temple, Ajith Singh Nagar, \^ijayawada, Krishna District ...PETITIONER jmo 1. APCPDCL, Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Near ITI College Road, 0pp. Ramesh Hospital, Vijayawada, Krishna District, 2. Executive Engineer, TPSSS Division, APCPDCL Guntur, Guntur District, 3. Superintending Engineer, (Operations) APCPDCL, Sangadigunta Guntur, Guntur District, 4. Senior Accounts Officer, o/o Superintending Engineer, Sangadigunta, Guntur, Guntur District Sangadigunta APCPDCL, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus India is filed praying more particularly declaring the action of the one respondents in deducting an amount 0 Rs. 12,90.264/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ninety Thousand and Two Sixty Four encashment amount as only) from my earned leave per the Memo No.CMD/DIR(Tech)/GM/HRD/DGM- l/PO(PEN)/SA-lll/D.No.867/22, Dt. 25.03.2022 as arbitrary and violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the same with interest at the rate of 12percent per annum and further direct the respondents to the basis of last drawn basic saliary' pay my pensionary benefits on ■5^.'^60/-(Rupees One Lakh fifty Seven housand and Seven Sixty only)-instead of 1,47,755/-(Rupees One Lakh forty Seven Thousand and Seve fifty Five oniy) and direct the respondents of pension along with commuted to pay difference of gratuity and difference value of pension along with interdst ^t the rate of 12o/„ per annum and direct the respondents to refund the illggdify deducted (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ninety thousand interest at the rate of 12% amount of Rs. 12,90,264/- and Two Sixty Four only) with 0 per annum, grant cost of the proceedings and such lA NO: 1 OF 9n9o Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed , praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit-filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct thb-respondents to refix my pension on the basts of my last drawn basic salary of Rs.1,57,760/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand and Seven Sixty phly) Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI Counsel for the Respondents: SRl v V SATISH The Court made the following: per month. M PITCHAIAH (SC FOR APEPDCL) •T" % APHC010674562022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 40040 of 2022 Between: ...Petitioner P.Venkateswarlu AND ...Respondents APCPDC! and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M Pitchaiah Counsel for the Respondents: 1. V V Satish (SC for APEPDCL) 2. The Court made the following order: The writ petition is filed challenging action of the respondents in deducting an amount of Rs. 12,90,264/- from earned leave encashment amount as per the Memo dated 25.03.2022. Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 2. Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing for the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner is working as a Helper in the O&M 3. establishment of the then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) 2 and was initially appointed on 09.07.1985 to a regular post in the HRT Division, Vijayawada. Subsequently, he was transferred and promoted as Sirang Second Grade on 05.07.1996. Thereafter, he was further promoted to the post of Sirang First Grade, till his retirement. He has taken voluntary retirement on 31.03.2022, though his actual date of superannuation 30.06.2022. was 4. The 2"^^ respondent issued proceedings dated 25.03.2022 prior to the petitioner’s voluntary retirement and ordered the deduction of a sum of Rs. 12,90,264/- from his leave encashment on the ground that the last drawn pay was incorrectly mentioned as Rs.1,47,755/-. It is that his last drawn pay was Rs.1,57,760/-. However, respondents have fixed at Rs.1,47,755/- and ordered recovery without issuing any notice to the petitioner. his further contention 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner was in no way responsible for the alleged excess payment. The petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery of Rs.12,90,264/- is not sustainable. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala^ and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of E.Narasimha Reddy vs. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited^ submits that unless the alleged on excess ^ Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010 ^ Writ Petition No.31708 of 2022 3 payment is attributable to misrepresentation or misstatement attributable to the petitioner, the respondents cannot recovery and that to without conducting any enquiry. The 2'"'^ respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the internal audit wing has taken objection that while arriving the qualified service of the petitioner date of first appointment was erroneously taken as 15.05.1980 instead of 09.07.1985, which allowed the petitioner to excess increments between 1998 and 2006 resulting in excess payment of Rs. 12,90,264/-. 7. 8. In view of the audit objection, recovery of the excess payment was it ii Ltcsi . \r\ » ic; at i\ji i tdiy iiyi 11 ^ vJUi ii csrno tc 0 firicai ^ I ^ ^4.4-1 ^4- oOilicri i iCI U 4.U^ i.1 ic i I Kt i petitioner’s pension and terminal benefits; hence, the recovery order was issued. 9. Considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (supra), it is observed that where an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery. I 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih Ophite Washer) and others^, wherein it is observed that: 18. 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 rriay, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove. we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few 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 recovery. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed one year, of the order of 11. that, unless it is contended that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid recovery cannot be effected. 12. Having regard to the contentions advanced, unless it is the case of the respondents that the alleged excess payment was made on account of any misrepresentation or misstatement on the part of the petitioner impugned order is not sustainable. In the present case, the recovery has been effected on account of an audit objection that the date of the first appointment was ^ (2015) 4 see 334 5 erroneously taken by the Board as 15.05.1980 instead of 19.07.1985, and the respondents have not attributed this erroneous entry to the petitioner. Having regard to the same, and in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) and State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra), the order of the respondents effecting recovery is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 13. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. One CC to SRI. M PITCHAIAH Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI V V SATISH (SC FOR APEPDCL) [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED;02/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.40040 of 2022 the writ petition is allowed WITHOUT COSTS