Telangana High Court
Dr. N. R. Giridhar vs Osmania University on 31 January, 2023
Bench: K. Sarath
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No. 2427 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of
Mandamus, declaring the proceedings
No.14/UAD/Gaz/2023, dated 17.01.2023 of respondent
No.2, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural
justice, and by nullifying the same, to direct the
respondents not to recover the excess payment.
2. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Ch.Jagannatha Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for
Osmania University appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2
and Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education
appearing for the respondent No.3.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was
initially appointed as Lecturer in the Department of
Ancient Indian History Culture and Archeology, University
::2::
College of Arts and Social Sciemces, Osmania University,
Hyderabad in June, 2007. After rendering considerable
length of service, the petitioner was promoted as Associate
Professor and Professor under Career Advancement
Progression. It has further been contended by the
petitioner that he has retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation on 31.12.2022, and after
retirement, the respondents had issued the impugned
proceedings, wherein an amount was sought to be
recovered from the petitioner on the ground of wrong
fixation of his pay, consequent upon an audit objection
was raised by the auditors.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent
University has contended that the petitioner was
erroneously extended the benefit of certain amount to
which the petitioner is not entitled and the same has to be
recovered from the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the respondents are not entitled to recover the
::3::
amount in question from the petitioner who has already
retired from service. In support of his contention, the
Learned Counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq
Masih1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at para-18 of
the said judgment, has given certain situations where the
amounts paid to the employees erroneously cannot be
recovered.
Para-18 of the said judgment reads 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 been
made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be
that as it may, based on the decisions referred to
hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize
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 and Group D service).
(2015) 4 SCC 334
::4::
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the
employees who are due to retire within one year, of the
order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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."
6. The petitioner has retired from service in December,
2022 and after his retirement, the respondents have
passed the impugned orders recovering the amounts,
which is impermissible, as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, referred to supra (1).
::5::
7. A perusal of the above said judgment would disclose
that recovery from the retired employees, or the employees
who are due to retire within one year, would be
impermissible in law.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of
and the impugned proceedings, dated 17.01.2023 is set
aside. No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed in consequence.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Dated:31.01.2023.
bb
