APHC010505312018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23975 OF 2018 Between: 1. Y.Krishna Murthy,, S/o. (late) Y.C. Kondaiah, Aged 63 years, Deputy Registrar (Retd), Sri Krishnadevaraya University, R/o.H.No.28-3-409, Sarada Nagar, Ananthapuramu. ...Petitioner AND 1. Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapuramu, Rep. by its Registrar, Ananthapuram District. 2. Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapuramu, Rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Ananthapuramu University. 3. Prl Secy Higher Education dept State of A P, The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...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 toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Respondent University Proc.No.SKU/S and IB/Pension/2014 dated 22- 4-2014 in revising pay of the Petitioner from the post of Deputy Registrar to Assistant Registrar i.e. from Rs.33,550/- to 2 VS,J W.P.No.23975 of 2018 Rs.31,550/- deleting two annual grade increments in the post of Deputy Registrar and the orders passed by the Respondent University in Proc.No.SKU/S and IB/N.T.Pension/2014 dated 12-5-2015 fixing pension of the Petitioner based on the reduced pay in the post of Assistant Registrar effecting recovery of an amount of Rs.51,246/- from the retirement Gratuity and not answering the representations of the Petitioner dated 4-10-2016, 18- 11-2016, 17-7-2017, 7-9-2016 for rectifying the injustice done to the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled for fixation of his pension in the promoted post of Deputy Registrar without there being any recovery with all consequential benefits and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: P V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: O UDAYA KUMAR SC For S K UNIVERSITY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following 3 VS,J W.P.No.23975 of 2018 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “… to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Respondent University Proc.No.SKU/S&IB/Pension/2014 dated 22-4-2014 in revising pay of the Petitioner from the post of Deputy Registrar to Assistant Registrar i.e. from Rs. 33,550/ to Rs.31,550/ deleting two annual grade increments in the post of Deputy Registrar and the orders passed by the Respondent University in Proc.No.SKU/S& IB/N.T.Pension/2014 dated 12-5-2015 fixing pension of the Petitioner based on the reduced pay in the post of Assistant Registrar effecting recovery of an amount of Rs.51,246/- from the retirement Gratuity and not answering the representations of the Petitioner dated 4-10-2016, 18-11-2016, 17-7-2017, 7-9-2016 for rectifying the injustice done to the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled for fixation of his pension in the promoted post of Deputy Registrar without there being any recovery with all consequential benefits ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was initially working as an Assistant Registrar in the respondent University, i.e., Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapuramu. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar in the pay scale of Rs.30,750/- with usual allowances pursuant to the orders of the Vice- Chancellor dated 08.06.2011, and he joined the promotional post on the same day. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 05.11.2011, the 2nd respondent fixed 4 VS,J W.P.No.23975 of 2018 his pay in the promotional post at Rs.30,750/- under Fundamental Rule 22(a)(i) with effect from 01.11.2011. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2013. b) While so, after nearly one year from the date of his retirement, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2014 informing the petitioner that the two increments granted to him at the time of his promotion from the post of Assistant Registrar to Deputy Registrar would be withdrawn and that his pay as on the date of retirement would be re-fixed for the purpose of sanction of pension and other retirement benefits. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 12.05.2014, the 2nd respondent unilaterally recovered a sum of Rs.51,246/- from the petitioner's retirement gratuity towards the alleged excess payment made on account of erroneous pay fixation for the period from 01.11.2011 to 31.05.2013. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University. 4. Despite granting several adjournments, the respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-University has produced written instructions of the Registrar, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, stating that the impugned recovery was effected in compliance with Audit Objection Lr.S.A.No.26/2013, wherein it was observed that the pay fixation in the promotional post was not in 5 VS,J W.P.No.23975 of 2018 accordance with the rules, as the said post had allegedly been created without obtaining the requisite ratification from the Government. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent, it can be observed that admittedly the said proceedings were issued after a lapse of nearly one year from the date of the petitioner's retirement. The 2nd respondent, having fixed the pay scale of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Registrar, to which he was promoted way back in the year 2011, issued the impugned proceedings without even giving notice to the petitioner with regard to the audit objection, as stated in the instructions. It can also be observed that, pursuant to the proceedings dated 22.04.2014, informing the petitioner about the proposed deduction, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 12.05.2014, suo motu deducted the said amount of Rs.51,246/- from the retirement gratuity towards the excess payment allegedly made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 01.11.2011 to 31.05.2013. 6. In this regard, the issue of recovery of excess payment made to the employees came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others1 having considered its earlier decisions, held that recovery of excess payment is not permitted where there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and where the 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 6 VS,J W.P.No.23975 of 2018 excess payment was made by applying a wrong interpretation of a Rule/Order. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under: “9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable…… 11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India this Court considered an incidental question as under: “27. The last question is to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6- 1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the 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 7 VS,J W.P.No.23975 of 2018 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. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” 7. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner obtained the benefit of pay fixation by misrepresentation or fraud. The petitioner's pay was fixed by the respondent University itself, and therefore, he cannot be held responsible for any mistake, if any, committed by the authorities in fixing his pay. If the Audit Department subsequently found the pay fixation to be incorrect, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for such error. Moreover, the recovery was made after his retirement without issuing any notice or giving him an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the action of the respondents in recovering the amount from the petitioner's retirement benefits is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is liable to be set aside. 8 VS,J W.P.No.23975 of 2018 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2014 and the consequential proceedings dated 12.05.2014, to the extent of deducting an amount of Rs.51,246/- from the retirement gratuity towards the excess payment made due to wrong fixation of pay from 01.11.2011 to 31.05.2015, are hereby set aside. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to refund the said amount already deducted from the retirement gratuity in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 20.07.2026 KGR