P. Kedari vs Governemnt Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2336 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

                    W.P.NO. 13052 OF 2003

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of

mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not

settling the pensionary benefits of the petitioner without

reference to the Provisions of Act, of 14 of 1991 i.e.

A.P.Educational Services, Untrained Teachers (Regulation

of Service and Fixation of Pay) Act, 1991 and passing the

recovery order as bad, arbitrary and illegal and

consequently to direct the respondents to release the

pensionary benefits including amounts already recovered

and the benefits accrued thereon without reference to the

provisions of Act of 14, 1991 and its consequential recovery

order and pass such orders as this Hon'ble High Court

deems fit and proper.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

working as a School Assistant in the 6th respondent school

from 20.02.1973 with qualification of B.Com in the grant-

in-aid post. Thereafter, on completion of ten years of

service, the petitioner was awarded ten years Special Grade

Post from 20.02.1983. Meanwhile, the petitioner had

PMD,J W.P.No.13052_2003

passed B.Ed in the year 1981 and was promoted as School

Assistant with effect from 01.10.1982 and thereafter, he

was promoted as Head Master with effect from 19.08.1991.

3. The petitioner submits that the respondents failed to

place the petitioner and other teachers in the pay scales

from the date of graduation. For fixation of seniority, the

petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6711 of 1979 and vide

orders dated 28.11.1985, the respondent- Management

was directed to address the Government for release of

appropriate Grant- In- Aid for payment of pay scale for the

petitioners therein and also directed the Government to

consider the case of the petitioners for release of necessary

grants. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners and other

teachers of aided teachers were given salaries as per the

pay scales. The respondents also revised the pay scale of

the petitioners on attaining the qualification of B.Ed and

other qualifications and allowed consequential benefits

from time to time and also Special Promotion Post on

completion of 10/15 years of service.

4. In the year 1991, the Government of Andhra Pradesh

issued Andhra Pradesh Educational Services, untrained

PMD,J W.P.No.13052_2003

teachers (regulation of service and fixation of pay Act,

1991) to regularize the pay fixation of the teachers only

according to the required qualifications. Consequent

thereto, respondents took steps for recovery of excess

amount paid to the petitioners consequent to the High

Court Order and other Government Orders. The 5th

respondent passed recovery orders of excess drawn

amounts of a sum of Rs.18,928/- from the petitioner by

deducting the same from 20.02.1973 to 28.02.1991 in the

arrears claimed by the petitioner.

5. Questioning the same, various cases were filed which

ultimately were carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

in the case of P.Tulasi Das and others Vs. Government

of Andhra Pradesh and others1, it was held that once the

benefits of grant were given by virtue of the orders of

Tribunal and the High Court, by passing of subsequent

legislation, such benefits should not be taken away which

accrued to the applicants. Therefore, the order passed by

the authorities to recover the amounts already paid to the

applicants therein was held as bad.

2002 (7) Supreme 527

PMD,J W.P.No.13052_2003

6. Seeking similar relief, the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition. Petitioner is seeking the payment of

pensionery benefits along with recovered amount and also

the consequential benefits thereon.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra, has

considered the vires of the circular of Andhra Pradesh

Educational Services, untrained teachers (regulation of

services and fixation of pay Act, 1991) and has held that

the rights which are accrued to the employees could not be

withdrawn by an Act of legislation retrospectively.

Therefore, according to him, the recovery made from the

salaries of the petitioner and similar persons have to be

refunded by the Government to the employees.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents, however,

relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit

stating that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is not

applicable to the case of the petitioner as he did not fall in

any of the category of employees who approached the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. Before this Court, he placed the

copy of the letter addressed by the Government of

PMD,J W.P.No.13052_2003

Telangana, School Education Department, addressed to the

Government Pleader for Education stating that the

Mr.P.Kedari, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2003 and also

that he had expired 2 ½ years back and that his family

members were all living abroad and no one is living in

Warangal. He therefore submits that even if the petitioner

succeeds in the writ petition, the benefits cannot be given

to anybody as there is nobody to claim the benefits of this

judgment.

9. Having regard to the rival contentions and material

on record, this Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Tulasi Das and Others (supra), has

extensively considered the Vires of Act, 14 of 1981 and has

held that the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 16 to the

extent they purport to take away retrospectively, the rights

which accrued to the teachers from 10.02.1967 under

Andhra Pradesh Educational Rules under 1966 and

required the respondents to repay or restore the retirement

monetary benefits withheld by the respondents. This

judgment was rendered on 24.10.2002, whereas the

petitioner has retired in July, 2003. As per the judgment of

PMD,J W.P.No.13052_2003

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government is required to

follow the same and at the time of retirement, the petitioner

ought to have been given the benefit and ought to have

refunded the amount which has already been recovered.

However, from the averments in the counter affidavit filed

by the respondents, it appears that the petitioner has been

paid the pensionery benefits, but the amount which has

been recovered earlier has not been repaid to him.

10. In view of the above, this Court deems fit and proper

to direct the respondents to pay the amount which has

been recovered from his salary i.e., a sum of Rs.18,928/-

with interest @ 6% thereon till date of payment. Since the

petitioner is reportedly dead, the amount may be kept in

suspense account and may be remitted to the legal heirs of

the petitioner if and when they claim the same. If the said

amount is not claimed within a period of six years from the

date of receipt of copy of this order, then the same shall be

transferred to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

PMD,J W.P.No.13052_2003

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Dated: 06.06.2022 bak

PMD,J W.P.No.13052_2003

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

W.P.NO.13052 OF 2003

Dated: 06.06.2022 bak