APHC010061282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 3594 OF 2024 Between: 1. KUNCHA SAHADEVAIAH, S/o KunchaUthanna (Late), Aged 56 years, Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University College of Engineering (Autonomous), J.N.T. University, Kakinada-533003, A.P ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education (U.E.) Dept, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep. by its Registrar, Kakinada- 533003 3. The Principal, University College of Engineering (Autonomous) J.N.T. University, Kakinada-533003 ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: P V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: I MADHU BABU (SC FOR JNTU KAKINADA) 2 Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES III Counsel for the Respondents:CH.S.V.SURAJ SC For JNTU KAKINADA 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 3594/2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Proc. No. Cl/JNTUK/Audit Recovery/Dr.KS/2023, dated 23.10.2023, issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed for the period from 01.12.2006 to 01.12.2007, and consequential directions were issued to recover all the excess amounts paid towards the increments at all cadres of the service of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the annual increments granted to the petitioner pursuant to his promotions during the period from 16.03.2007 to 12.07.2023 were revised by virtue of the impugned proceedings, resulting in re-fixation of pay and consequential recovery of the alleged excess amounts paid towards such increments. It is further submitted that there is no allegation with regard to payment of excess amount and the quantification done by the respondents was behind the back of the petitioner without issuing any notice nor affording any opportunity to the petitioner. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit as well as additional counter affidavit. However, a perusal of both counter affidavits reveals that they are 4 silent regarding the issuance of notice to the petitioner before taking the decision to revise the pay and before initiating recovery proceedings. 5. However, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the last paragraph of the proceedings dated 09.08.2016, annexed at page No.156 of the additional counter affidavit, whereby the petitioner was designated as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme. The said paragraph reads as follows: “The staff member is informed that in case the appointment now made and the pay fixed in the above post is found incorrect by the Audit at a later date, the excess payments made if any will be recovered from the individual and the orders stand cancelled.” 6. Placing reliance on the above, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that, since the proceedings itself stipulated that any excess amount made will be recovered from the individual, no separate notice was required to be issued. 7. A perusal of the impugned proceedings discloses that, the impugned proceedings is issued by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.Nos.14 and 20, dated 13.02.1999 and 28.06.2023 respectively, the letter of the Audit Officer dated 10.07.2023, the proceedings of the University dated 12.07.2023 and the note orders of the Principal dated 23.10.2023. However, apart from placing reliance on the above, no reasons were assigned for re-fixation of the petitioner’s pay or for the quantification of the alleged excess payment. 5 Furthermore, neither a notice was served on the petitioner nor afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned proceedings. 8. As stated above, the impugned proceedings were issued without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The condition imposed while granting Career Advancement Scheme, to the effect that excess amounts paid, if any, shall be recovered, cannot be treated as a notice for the reason that, unless the excess amounts are quantified and the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to establish that the benefit extended to him under the Career Advancement is not contrary to law, the issue cannot be decided unilaterally, as such, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned proceedings in Proc. No. Cl/JNTUK/Audit Recovery/Dr.KS/2023, dated 23.10.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent - University with a direction to issue appropriate notice and provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the claim of the University and pass appropriate orders in terms of the case law relied upon by the petitioner in State of Punjab Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer)1 strictly in accordance with law. 1 2015 4 SCC 334 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 23.07.2026 Dvs Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 91 WRIT PETITION NO: 3594/2024 Dt: 23.07.2026 Dvs