Obulapu. Ramesh Kiran, vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 4489 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.13448 of 2023

                                   PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                   OFFICE
              DATE                                 ORDER
No.                                                                                    NOTE

05.      25.09.2023    NV,J
                               Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
                               Even though the name of Sri N. Harinath,
                       learned Deputy Solicitor General of India is
                       printed, there is no representation made on
                       behalf of him.
                               On earlier occasions also, none appeared
                       on his behalf.
                               Learned counsel for the petitioners relied
                       upon the          ratio    laid down        by the   Hon'ble
                       Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others
                       vs.     Rafiq      Masih      (White        Washer)      and
                       others1 wherein it is held as under:
                        18. It      is    not     possible    to    postulate   all
                        situations of hardship which would govern
                        employees on the issue of recovery, where
                        payments have mistakenly 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

1
    (2015) 4 SCC 334
                        2


 and Group D service).

 (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or
 employees who are due to retire within one
 year, of the order of recovery.

 (iii) Recovery from 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.


 (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.


        In view of the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred
supra, this Court is of the opinion that a prima
facie   case    is made      out in   favour   of the
petitioners,      since     recoveries     from      the
employees belonging to Class III & IV Service
(or     Group     C   and    Group    D   service)     is
impermissible under law. Hence, there shall be
an interim direction, directing Respondents not

to recover any amount from the salaries of the petitioners for a period of four weeks, from today.

Post the matter on 12.10.2023.

________ NV, J Knr