Date of reserved for orders: Date of pronouncement :07.07.2026 Date of uploading : 13.07.2026 APHC010023962022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1532/2022 Between: 1. M BULLAYYA, S/O. VEERAJU, AGED 61 YEARS, RETIRED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC) WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. M. RAMASESHU,, W/O LATE M. BULLIYYA, AGE 62 YEARS, R/O.75-1-17, PRAKASH NAGAR, KSR PLAZA S-3, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE 533101. 3. M. SRI KRISHNA CHAITANYA,, S/O LATE M. BULLIYYA, AGE 38 YEARS, R/O.75-1-17, PRAKASH NAGAR, KSR PLAZA S-3, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE 533101. 4. M. SRI KRISHNA RAGHAVENDRA,, S/O LATE M.BULLIYYA, AGE 26 YEARS, R/O.75-1-17, PRAKASH NAGAR, KSR PLAZA S-3, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE 533101. PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD, AS LRS TO THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.06.2026 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN WP NO.1532 OF 2022 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (SERVICES-LL) DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, BLOCK NO. 4, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, CAPITAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF ADMN, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, CURRENCY NAGAR, RAMAVARAPPADU RING, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT STATE OF AP. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, POLAVARAM IRRIGATION PROJECT HEAD WORKS CIRCLE DOWLAISWARAM, E.G.DISTRICT, 4. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, (ACCOUNTS AND ENTITLEMENT)A.P.STALIN CENTRAL MALL, D.NO. 27-37-158, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, M.G,.ROAD, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA- 52002 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Wit Order or direction more particulary one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the impugened recovery Proceedings Lr.No. RC/ENC/F2/E-21111442/2021, dated 6-01-2022, (Served on 17-1-2022) issued by the 2nd respodnent, and Proceedings dated 21-10-2021, issued by the Executive Engineer, PIPHW Division No. 8 Jangareddygudem Memo dated 7-9-2021 issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal arbitrary in violation of Art, 14 of the Consitution of India and also contrary to the Apex Court judgement in State Punjap and Ors Vs Rafiq Mashi and ors reported (2015) 4 SCC 334, and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to release the full pension, Retirement Gratuituy and Encashment of Earned Leave along other retirement benefits immediately without effecting any recovery to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of the impugned proceedings Lr.No. Rc/ENC/F2/E-21111442/2021, dated 6-01-20212, issued by the 2nd respondents and proceedings dated 21-10-2021 issued by the Executive Engineer, Jangareddygudem, and Memo dated 7-9-2021 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass 3 IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 vacate the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.01.2022 in WP.No.1532 of 2022 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to permit the legal heirs of the first writ petitioner to be brought on record as writ petitioners 2 to 4 in the above writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU 2. BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. K SWARNA SESHU The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.1532 OF 2022 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the impugned recovery proceedings Lr.No.Rc/ENC/F2/E-21111442/2021, dated 6-01-2022, (Served on 17- 1-2022) issued by the 2nd respondent, and Proceedings dated 21-10- 2021, issued by the Executive Engineer, PIPHW Division No.8 Jangareddygudem, Memo dated 07-09-2021 issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Apex Court judgment in State Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Mashi and ors reported (2015) 4 SCC 334, and set aside the same. Consequently, direct the respondents to release the Full Pension, Retirement Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave along other retirement benefits immediately without effecting any recovery to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 06.01.2022, vide Lr.No. RC/ENC/F2/E-21111442/2021, directing the 4th respondent-Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement), to make necessary arrangements to issue the Pension Payment order, Gratuity Payment order and authorizing communication amount of pension, as per eligibility, under intimation to the Office of the 2nd respondent duly recovering the amount of Rs.12,70,885/- from the pension amount due to the excess payment in the pay fixation. 3. The said order is under challenge before this Court on the ground that the alleged excess payments were not paid at the petitioner’s request and petitioner have not gained them by playing any fraudulent action. Therefore, the alleged recovery after the petitioner’s retirement is bad in law and placed reliance on the 5 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Refiq Masi (white washer) and others1. The Hon’ble Apex Court after summarizing the law, given the following guidelines, 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 one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) 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. (iv) Recovery in cases where in 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner falls under category II and III. The respondents cannot recover excess paid to the petitioner. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2022. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit and at paragraph No.5 it is stated that case of the petitioner has been considered to Special Promotion 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 6 Post Scale-1B (SPP-IB) on completion of 18 years of service in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.96, Fin (PC-II) Department dated 20.05.2011 and Government Cir.Memo.No.020091/125/PC.II/2011 dated 17.08.2011 vide Chief Engineer (Projects), Irrigation, Karimnagar Proc No.CE (P)/Irrgn/KMR/A5/Estt/1048 dated 09.05.2012. But, the same increment (SPP-IB) was reissued in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer while notionally fixing the pay w.e.f. 29.06.2005 by oversight and accordingly the mistake was committed by the authorities. 6. The above paragraph clearly indicates that the respondents have paid the excess amount by oversight without the intervention or influence of the petitioner and no fraud has been played by the petitioner. The respondents have paid the said amount inadvertently. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically stated that when there is no fraud played by the petitioner, the same cannot be recovered from the petitioner. The summarisation of above judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. 7. Hence, the present Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding dated 06.01.2022 is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 07.07.2026 KBN Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 88 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.1532 of 2022 Date: 07.07.2026 KBN