Telangana High Court
D. Bakkaiah Shastry vs The Principal Secretary And 3 Others on 25 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION (T.R) No.89 of 2017
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking
a declaration
(i) that the petitioner is entitled to get his pension
fixed on the basic of Rs.36,700/- and is entitled
to be paid gratuity on the said basis of
Rs.36,700/- which he was drawing as on the
date of his retirement i.e. 28.02.2010;
(ii) that the pension payment made on the basis of
the revised LPC whereby and whereunder, his
basic was shown as Rs.34,900/- as illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and
300A of Constitution of India;
(iii) that the recovery of Rs.74,968/- made from the
gratuity of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional; and
(iv) to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present
writ petition are that the petitioner retired from
service as Language Pandit Grade-II on 28.02.2010.
During his service, the petitioner's pay was fixed
under the Automatic Advancement Scheme under 8,
16 and 24 years scales and the petitioner submitted
his pension papers, which were forwarded on
01.08.2010 to the Accountant General, A&E, A.P.,
Hyderabad. Service pension of Rs.36,700/- was
recommended and all the consequential benefits
were also computed accordingly. However, the office
of the Accountant General, returned the proposals
sent by the Head Master, by observing that the pay
has to be refixed and the excess of pay and
allowances from 01.02.2005 to 30.04.2010 paid have
to be worked out. Accordingly, the petitioner was
required to submit another set of pension papers
making a different calculations based on another
LPC. As per the revised order, the petitioner's basic
pay was shown as Rs.34,900/- as against the basic
pay drawn was Rs.36,700/-. Challenging the same,
the petitioner filed O.A.No.7646 of 2012 before the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and on
abolition of the Tribunal, the same has been
transfered to this Court and numbered as
W.P.(T.R).No.89 of 2017.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit
and on 27.09.2012, the Tribunal had passed the
interim stay of recovery of the amount of Rs.74,968/-
from the gratuity of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that similar issues have already been adjudicated by
this Court in a number of cases and in
W.P.No.15524 of 2017, after considering the issue at
length, this Court has observed as follows:
"5. Taking into consideration the Full Bench judgment
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
others, the Apex Court judgment in State of Punjab
and others v Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2014)8
SCC 833 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 Judgment
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 to and discussed in
detail in order dated 17.08.2022 passed in
W.P.No.24687 of 2013, this Court finds that the
alleged excess payments made to the petitioners is
not on account of any fault on their part and in view
of the law laid down in the various judgments no
recovery can be made.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, the writ petition is allowed directing the
respondents to pay the respective amounts recovered
from the petitioners on proper acknowledgment,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. Registry is directed to enclose
copy of order dated 17.08.2022 passed in
W.P.No.24687 of 2013 along with this writ petition.
There shall be no order as to costs."
5. Learned Government Pleader for the
respondents is also heard.
6. After going through the entire record and also
the decision of this Court in W.P.No.15524 of 2017,
this Court finds that the issue is covered by the
decision of this Court in the said case and the
recovery of the sum of Rs.74,968/-, if already made,
shall be repaid to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall also stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date:25.07.2024
TU
