Telangana High Court
T. Vanaja vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 12 February, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
W.P.No.17903 of 2019
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2017 passed in
O.A.No.121 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad, (for short 'the Tribunal'), the present writ
petition has been filed.
2. Heard Sri K.R.S.Prakash Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt. P.Manjula, learned
counsel representing Smt P.Sarada, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that initially, her husband
was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 02.11.1984.
Later, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on
ad hoc basis for a period of one year vide order dated
01.12.2000 and the ad hoc promotion was extended
periodically and finally, he was granted regular promotion as
Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil) on 02.05.2008. Thereafter,
the post of Assistant Engineer was re-designated as
Sub-Divisional Engineer and the respondents have issued
proceedings on 16.06.2009, wherein the respondents
intended to recover the excess amount paid to the
petitioner's husband on the ground that he failed to pass
departmental examination of Assistant Engineer, which was
a condition stipulated in the proceedings dated 06.10.1999.
Pursuant to the same, the petitioner's husband has submitted
a representation to the respondents on 19.06.2009 requesting
them not to recover the amounts. When no orders were
passed on the said representation, the petitioner's husband
had approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.542 of 2009.
The Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.2009 disposed of the OA
by directing the petitioner's husband to submit a
representation to the respondents within 15 days from the
date of receipt of copy of the order and on receipt of such
representation, the respondents are directed to consider the
same and pass appropriate orders thereon. In pursuance of
the said order, the petitioner's husband submitted a
representation dated 06.01.2010 to the respondents. But the
respondents have rejected the same vide order dated
12.04.2010 and ordered for withdrawal of increments and
recovery of the payments already made vide letter dated
01.05.2010. Thereafter, the respondents have issued
proceedings dated 20.10.2011 by fixing his pay with effect
from 01.03.2004 and also ordered for recovery by
withdrawing the increments already paid. Aggrieved by the
order of recovery, the petitioner's husband approached the
Tribunal by filing O.A.No.121 of 2012. Without
appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner's
husband, the Tribunal vide order dated 07.10.2017 dismissed
the O.A. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband died on
15.11.2017. Hence, the writ petition is filed by his wife-
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had
contended that the issue involved in this writ petition is
squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in State
of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
and others 1, wherein it was held that if any amounts were
paid for more than five years, such amounts cannot be
recovered. Learned counsel had further contended that
admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents have paid
amounts towards increments from 2004 to 2010 and as such,
the respondents cannot recover the amounts from the
petitioner's husband. But, this fact was not properly
appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, appropriate orders
be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order
passed by the Tribunal.
2015(4) SCC 334
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents had
contended that pre-requisite condition for promotion to the
post of Assistant Engineer was that one should pass
departmental examination. Even though the petitioner's
husband did not pass the departmental examination, the
respondents have erroneously paid excess increments to him.
Therefore, the respondents were justified in ordering
recovery of excess amount from the petitioner's husband.
There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that
the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the
ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (White
Washer)'s case (1 supra), wherein it was held that if any
excess amounts were paid for more than five years, those
amounts cannot be recovered. Therefore, the Tribunal was
not justified in dismissing the O.A and the same is liable to
be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting
aside the order dated 07.10.2017 passed in O.A.No.121 of
2012 by the Tribunal. It is needless to say that the recovery
order dated 01.05.2010 is also set aside. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
__________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 12.02.2025
rkk
