W. Badrinath Rao vs Government Of A.P.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4577 Tel

         THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                            W.P. No. 24821 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

2010(4) ALT 145 = 2010 (0) Supreme (A) 308 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.

    (2014)8 SCC 833
                                3                                SN,J

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for

and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.3,34,358/-

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