THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.29112 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri A.V.V.S.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the case of 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 others 1 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 thereof not to recover any amount from any of the Language Pandits Grade II, who was given benefit of scale of pay of Grade-I. It is submitted that the alleged payment made to the Petitioner No.2 who is a legal heir of the Petitioner No.1 (deceased employee) is not on account of any fault on the part of her husband i.e. Petitioner No.1, the Petitioner No.1 was a LANGUAGE PANDIT GRADE-II and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the 1 2010(4) ALT 145 = 2010 (0) Supreme (A) 308 2 case of State of Punjab and others v Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2 no recovery can be made after the retirement of such an employee.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Services I is also heard on behalf of the respondents.
4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions and the Full Bench judgment in State Language Teachers' Association's case referred to above and 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.Nos.32896 and 33790 of 2013 and W.P.Nos.21866, 26512 and 26521 of 2021 dated 24.02.2022 and the law laid down in 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 No.2 who is a legal heir of the Petitioner No.1 is not on account of any fault on the part of her husband i.e. Petitioner No.1 and therefore, no recovery can be made. The Government has also issued a Memo No.6122/Ser.II.A1/2023, dated 10.08.2023 taking note of the above 2 (2014)8 SCC 833 3 Judgments and that the operation of the Ordinance and the Act are held to be bad and that they would operative in future from the date of the ordinance and the Director of School Education was directed to take necessary action accordingly.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.3,98,816/- recovered from the Petitioner No.1 retirement gratuity to the Petitioner No.2 who is a legal heir of the Petitioner No.1, on proper acknowledgment, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date:17.10.2023 Note: Furnish C.C by 20.10.2023 TU 4 110 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.29112 of 2023 Date:17.10.2023 Note: Furnish C.C by 20.10.2023 TU