Rama Subba Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3271 Tel

                  THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

                               WRIT PETITION No.29090 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri A.V.V.S.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I

appearing for the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in

the case of 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 others 1 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 thereof

not to recover any amount from any of the Language Pandits

Grade II, who was given benefit of scale of pay of Grade-I. It is

submitted that the alleged payment made to the petitioner is

not on account of any fault on his part, the petitioner was a

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

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 after

the retirement of such an employee.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Services I is also heard

on behalf of the respondents.

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions and the

Full Bench judgment in State Language Teachers'

Association's case referred to above and 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.Nos.32896 and 33790

of 2013 and W.P.Nos.21866, 26512 and 26521 of 2021 dated

24.02.2022 and the law laid down in 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

(2014)8 SCC 833

the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner is not on

account of any fault on his part and therefore, no recovery can

be made. The Government has also issued a Memo

No.6122/Ser.II.A1/2023, dated 10.08.2023 taking note of the

above Judgments and that the operation of the Ordinance and

the Act are held to be bad and that they would operative in

future from the date of the ordinance and the Director of School

Education was directed to take necessary action accordingly.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and the

respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,95,755 /-

recovered from the petitioner's retirement gratuity, on proper

acknowledgment, within a period of three (03) months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date:17.10.2023 Note: Furnish C.C by 20.10.2023 TU

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION No.29090 of 2023

Date:17.10.2023

Note: Furnish C.C by 20.10.2023 TU