P a g e | 1 APHC010054282023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 3446 OF 2023 Between: 1. INDIRA, W/o Hanmesh, Aged about 45 years, Occ. ANM, ESI Dispensary Budhavarpeta, R/o Kurnool, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh State. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director of Medical Insurance Service, Andhra Pradesh at Vijayawada. 3. The Joint Director Insurance Medical Services, Kadpa, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Incharge Medical Officer, E.S.I. Dispensary, Budhavarpeta, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh State. ...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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1932627-1/E2/2022, dt.24.12.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent as the petitioner have not completed health visitor training course which is P a g e | 2 pre-requisite for sanction of increment under Automatic Advancement Scheme and issued recovery proceedings after lapse of 12 years in getting advancement scheme SPPI A and SPP 1B and set aside the same, as illegal, arbitrary and against the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and ors Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc in CA No.11527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11684 of 20212 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1932627-1/E2/2022, dt.24.12.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 grant leave to file counter affidavit in W.P.No.3446 of 2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: KARANAM VASANTHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following order: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 3446 OF 2023 O R D E R: 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Rc.No.1932627- 1/E2/2022, dated 24.12.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 seeking recovery of amounts paid towards an increment under the Automatic Advancement Scheme after lapse of 12 years. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Staff Nurse and completed 18 years of service. Thereafter, she was extended the benefit of the Special Promotion Post (SPP) Category-I(A) and Special Adverse Pay Package (SAPP) Category-I(B) and received the corresponding monetary benefits with effect from 03.08.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner was also issued proceedings by the 3rd respondent on 28.11.2022. Pursuant to the revision of pay scales under the Automatic Advancement Scheme in the Revised Pay Scales, 2005, vide G.O.(P) No.241, Finance (P.C.II) Department, dated 28.09.2005, the petitioner continued to draw salary in the SPP-I(A) and SAPP-I(B) scales from 2012 onwards. However, the 3rd respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 24.12.2022, held that the extension of the SPP- I(A) and SAPP-I(B) scales to the petitioner in the cadre of ANM was erroneous, cancelled the earlier proceedings, and initiated recovery of the amounts paid to her. P a g e | 4 3. Heard Sri K. Vasantha Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bokka Sameera, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was neither at fault nor had made any misrepresentation or committed any fraud upon the Department in obtaining the benefits sanctioned based on her length of service in the cadre of ANM. It is further submitted that, after a lapse of more than 12 years, the respondents have issued the impugned proceedings seeking recovery of the alleged excess amounts paid to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih1, wherein it held 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 may, 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 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 an 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. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 P a g e | 5 (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. 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that recovery of excess payments would be impermissible in the circumstances enumerated therein. In the present case, the petitioner was a Class-IV employee and retired from service on 30.04.2026. It was further submitted that the alleged excess payments had commenced nearly twelve years ago, and that recovery of such amount at this stage would cause severe hardship to the petitioner. 7. Ms. Bokka Sameera, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner was paid excess amounts despite not possessing the requisite Health Visitor Training qualification, which is a pre-requisite for grant of increments to the post of ANM. It was further submitted that, upon noticing the said discrepancy, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for her explanation. After considering the matter, the competent authority passed the impugned order. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had made any misrepresentation or played fraud upon the department for obtaining the increments. The increments were sanctioned on account of a P a g e | 6 mistake committed by the authorities. Even according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the excess payment was the result of an error committed by the authorities. The alleged excess payment was made under the Automatic Advancement Scheme and continued for nearly twelve years. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, referred to supra, the petitioner cannot be directed to refund the excess amount paid to her on account of the mistake of the authorities, particularly after such a prolonged period. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the mistake committed by the authorities. 9. Consequently, the proceedings of respondent No.3 in Rc.No.1932627- 1/E2/2022, dated 24.12.2022, directing recovery of an amount of Rs.5,25,933/- in 22 equal monthly installments, are hereby set aside. The respondents shall not recover the said amount from the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, any interim orders granted earlier shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 17.08.2026 SAK P a g e | 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 3446 OF 2023 Date: 17.08.2026 SAK