M. Raja Reddy Died vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3272 Tel

                  THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

                              WRIT PETITION No.29112 of 2023

ORDER:

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

petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing

for the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 No.2 who is a legal heir of the Petitioner No.1 (deceased

employee) is not on account of any fault on the part of her husband

i.e. Petitioner No.1, the Petitioner No.1 was a LANGUAGE PANDIT

GRADE-II and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

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

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 the alleged excess payment made to the Petitioner No.2 who is a

legal heir of the Petitioner No.1 is not on account of any fault on the

part of her husband i.e. Petitioner No.1 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

(2014)8 SCC 833

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.3,98,816/-

recovered from the Petitioner No.1 retirement gratuity to the

Petitioner No.2 who is a legal heir of the Petitioner No.1, 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.29112 of 2023

Date:17.10.2023

Note: Furnish C.C by 20.10.2023 TU