APHC010052322022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION No: 3393 of 2022 Between: 1. Union of India, Rep. By The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhavan, Newelhi 2. The Chairman And Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (Corporate Office), Janapath, New Delhi 3. The Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom Circle, BSNL Bhavan, 4 Floor, Chuttugunta Viajayawada 4. The Controller of Communication Accounts, A.P. Telecom Circle, IInd Floor, Microwav Vijayawada-520 010. 5. The General Manager, Srikakulam- 532 001. 6. The Assistant General Manager (Admin), O/ Srikakulam- 532 001. 1. D.Appa Rao, , S/o. D.Pentayya, Aged About 63 Years, Occ Technician (Retired) Group C, Office of the General Manager, Telecom District, Srikakulam-532 001, R/o. 6 Kotabommali (M), Srikakulam D 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No: 3393 of 2022 Union of India, Rep. By The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhavan, Newelhi-110 001. The Chairman And Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office), Janapath, New Delhi-110 001. The Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom Circle, BSNL Bhavan, 4 Floor, Chuttugunta Viajayawada-520 004. The Controller of Communication Accounts, A.P. Telecom Circle, IInd Floor, Microwave Building Pandit Gandhi Colony, M.G. Road, The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Telecom District, The Assistant General Manager (Admin), O/o. GMTD ...PETITIONER(S) AND D.Appa Rao, , S/o. D.Pentayya, Aged About 63 Years, Occ Technician (Retired) Group C, Office of the General Manager, Telecom 532 001, R/o. 6-10, Main Road, Kujjipeta, Kotabommali (M), Srikakulam District- 532 195. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3549] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Union of India, Rep. By The Secretary, Department of The Chairman And Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, The Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom Circle, BSNL Bhavan, 4th The Controller of Communication Accounts, A.P. Telecom Circle, e Building Pandit Gandhi Colony, M.G. Road, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Telecom District, MTD, BSNL, ...PETITIONER(S) D.Appa Rao, , S/o. D.Pentayya, Aged About 63 Years, Occ-Telecom Technician (Retired) Group C, Office of the General Manager, Telecom 10, Main Road, Kujjipeta, 2 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Represented By Its Registrar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Mr.K. NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.S SRINIVASA RAO 2. Mr.M.Bhaskar 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble NJS, J) Heard Mr.K.Narsireddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 15.06.2021 in O.A.No.816 of 2019. 3. The 1st respondent herein, who worked as a Telecom Technician, Group-C, filed the said O.A., seeking to set aside the letter dated 09.08.2019 and the action of the respondents therein in recovering an amount of Rs.2,15,927/- towards alleged excess payment and to direct refund of the same. After considering the matter, the learned Tribunal, in the light of Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Punjab and other v. Rafiq Masih1 (White Washer Case) held that the applicant / respondent No.1 herein was a Group “C” employee and recovery made from his pensionery benefits for the excess payment made prior to 5 years from the date of his retirement, is impermissible. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the learned Tribunal directed refund of Rs.2,15,927/- with interest at the rate applicable to General Provident Fund deposits. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners made submissions inter alia with reference to Ex.P6 dated 21.12.2010 and the decision of the Hon’ble 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 4 Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others v. Jagadev Singh2 dated 29.07.2016. 5. We have considered the submissions made. So far as Ex.P6 is concerned, it is obviously the document relating to up-gradation of pay scales in respect of respondent herein. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said document contains a ‘Note’ to the effect that up-gradation of pay is notional and over payment, if any, may be adjusted / recovered. Except the said document, nothing is placed on record to show that the respondent / employee is put on notice that if any excess amount is paid, the same would be recovered from him. Mere ‘Note’ in the office record of the writ petitioners would not suffice to contend that the respondent is put on notice that in the event of making excess payment, the same is liable to be refunded. The judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, there was a clear intimation to the respondent / employee that excess payment would be required to refunded and an undertaking to the said effect was taken from the employee. In the present case, such a situation is not present. No such undertaking, if any, is placed before this Court to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. That apart, it is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as Telecom Technician i.e., Group-C category, which is equivalent to Category No.III services. 2 (2016) 14 SCC 267 5 6. In Rafiq Masih’s case(referred to supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that the recovery by the employer from the employees belonging to Clause No.III and Clause No.IV services (or Group C and Group D service) is impressible in Law. 7. In the light of the above said judgment and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, merits no appreciation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 06.08.2025 BLV 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Writ Petition No: 3393 of 2022 Dated: 06.08.2025 BLV