THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 28253 of 2013
ORDER:
Heard Sri A.V.V.S.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education and learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning.
2. In view of the fact that in a case in State Language Teachers' Association, represented by its State General Secretary, Palla Sathaiah and others v State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary to Government, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Hyderabad and others1 of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that Act 1 of 2005 is constitutionally valid, yet, however, there was a clear observation at para 73 Clause (iii) not to recover any amount from any of the Language Pandits Grade II, who was given benefit of scale of pay of Grade-I, and further in the present case, this Court finds that the alleged payment made to the petitioner is not on account of any fault 1 2010(4) ALT 145 = 2010 (0) Supreme (A) 308 Wp_23721_2013 2 SN,J on his part, the petitioner was a LANGUAGE PANDIT GRADE-II and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v Rafiq Masih (White Washer)2 no recovery can be made.
3. Taking into consideration the Full Bench judgment in State Language Teachers' Association's case referred to above, the Apex Court judgment in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) referred to above and also the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad passed in W.P.No.32896 and 33790 of 2013, dated 24.02.2022 and also the Division Bench Judgement dated 24.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.21866, 26512 and 26521 of 2021 and the law laid by the various Apex Court judgments referred thereto and that the subject matter has already been discussed elaborately in W.P.No.24687 of 2013 by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2022, this Court finds that the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner is not on account of any fault on his part and in view of the law laid down in the various judgments referred thereto and discussed, no recovery can be made.
2
(2014)8 SCC 833
Wp_23721_2013
3 SN,J
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.2,43,262/- recovered from the petitioner, on proper acknowledgment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 13.09.2022 Note: office to enclose copy of order dated 17.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.24687 of 2013 to this order. b/o Kvrm