Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S G M K Naga Baji vs The State Of Ap on 20 August, 2024
APHC010355922024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 18144/2024
Between:
S G M K Naga Baji ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M R TAGORE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
Rule Nisi.
Call for records.
Learned Government Pleader for Services takes notice on behalf of the
respondents.
Notice returnable in four (04) weeks.
________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
I.A.No.1 of 2024:-
Heard Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents.
The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings issued by
respondent No.4 vide Ref.No.SA-1/18/2023-2, dated 07.10.2023 whereby
directing the petitioner to remit the excess amount paid and allowances from
18.12.2004 to 31.07.2023 amounting to Rs.17,21,823/-, as illegal and
arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was
appointed as Attender vide proceedings No.E2/2340/96, dated 08.08.1996 on
compassionate grounds. The petitioner passed intermediate by the date of his
appointment on compassionate grounds as Attender. The petitioner submitted
representation dated 08.01.1998 to consider the case of appointment to the
post of Junior Assistant. However, the respondent No.2 rejected the claim
made by the petitioner by proceedings dated 09.01.2009. The petitioner
submitted representation to the Government in the month of June, 2010.
Respondent No.1 issued memo No.10554/CT.III.2/2010-2, dated 19.07.2010
whereby to give notional seniority. Based on the notional seniority, the
petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant along with others.
Challenging the Government Memo dated 19.07.2010, one Sri CHVRK
Sastry filed O.A. The said O.A was allowed on 15.07.2014. The petitioner filed
W.P.No.27053 of 2014. Initially, order of status-quo was granted on
04.08.2015 in the said writ petition. In view of the same, the petitioner was
allowed to continue as Senior Assistant. The said writ petition was dismissed.
Review filed by the petitioner was also dismissed and further SLP filed by the
petitioner was also dismissed on 26.06.2024. In view of the dismissal of SLP,
the petitioner was reverted. By the proceedings impugned in the writ petition,
respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to pay excess amount paid and
allowances.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments
of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih1 and Thomas Daniel v. State
of Kerala and others2. In the aforementioned judgments, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court dealt with the issue where monetary benefits were given in excess of
entitlement of consequent upon a mistake committed by the concerned
authorities sought to be recovered. After considering various judgments, it was
observed are as follows:
"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
herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following
few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
service (or Group „C‟ 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
2015 (4) SCC 334
2022 SCC OnLine SC 438
harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employer‟s right to recover."
Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be stay of all
further proceedings vide Ref.No.SA-1/18/2023-2, dated 07.10.2023 issued by
respondent No.4.
________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
TVN
