[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs A. Nampalli on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
I.A.No.1 of 2026
in/and
WRIT APPEAL No.406 of 2026
Dated: 10.04.2026
Between:
The State of Telangana,
Education (PE.LIB.) Department,
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
and 3 others.
...Appellants
and
A.Nampalli
...Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader
for Services-I, appears for the appellants.
Learned counsel Sri Gurram Srinivas appears for the respondent.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11.07.2025
passed by the learned writ court allowing W.P.No.25693 of 2023 filed
by the respondent herein.
3. The learned writ court by the impugned judgment set aside the
order dated 10.07.2020 whereby recovery of Rs.99,000/- was made from
the gratuity amount of the respondent on account of not having passed
the Accounts Test Part - I within the period of two years, which was a
condition on the grant of Special Promotion Post Scale - II on
completion of 24 years of service to the respondent who was serving as
Librarian in the appropriate grade. The learned writ court directed the
appellants to release the refund amount, as the impugned action was
without any notice and in clear violation of principles of natural justice.
The learned writ court also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih 1.
4. There is a delay of 227 days in filing the instant appeal for
condonation of which I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed.
5. However, though the prayer for delay is not seriously opposed,
learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the present
appeal on merits.
(2014) 8 SCC 883
6. From the conspectus of facts borne on record, which are not in
dispute, it appears that the respondent could not satisfy the condition of
passing Accounts Test Part - I within the period of two years, since he
retired within two years on 31.03.2018. Thereafter, the proceedings
were initiated for recovery without any notice to the respondent.
7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that even if
the increments were paid on pay fixation on account of promotion to
Scale - II on completion of 24 years of service and the respondent could
not pass the Accounts Test Part - I within two years period, but after his
retirement any recovery if permissible in law would be made only after
compliance of principles of natural justice by issuing proper notice to
show cause.
8. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 10.07.2020, though
rightly has been interfered by the learned writ court on grounds of non-
compliance of principles of natural justice, but the learned writ court
ought to have remanded the matter for compliance of principles of
natural justice by issuing a show cause notice upon the respondent
before recovering the alleged amount. The learned writ court had instead
straightaway directed release of consequential monetary benefits to the
respondent and refund the amount deducted. The latter part of the
impugned direction is, therefore, interfered. It is open for the appellants
to issue show cause notice and take a decision upon consideration of the
respondent's reply on the question of recovery of any amount allegedly
paid in excess.
9. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is allowed and the writ appeal is accordingly
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
10.04.2026
vs
