Vedula Srinivasu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

VEDULA SRINIVAS, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, R/O FLAT 502, SRI GAJANANA RESIDENCY, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR DRONAMRAJU KALYANAMANDAPAM, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVT., TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR.

¶15

APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA.

¶16

DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, (REGIONAL MANAGER) SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, Order or direction, particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the of the 3rd respondent in Ref.No. P1/255(1)/2022-DPTO/SKLM dated 16.08.2023 thereby passing an order to re-fix pettioner's pay at minimum pay in the time scale applicable to Junior Scale Officer category on his reappointment on 21.12.2015 and

¶19

2

¶20

made pay fixations upto 01.09.2022, thereby causing me a substantial loss in his Basic Pay from Rs.1,12,610/- to Rs.74,770/-, as without jurisdiction, illegal, irregular, arbitrary and unjust, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, set aside the same and consequently suspend the 3rd respondent orders Ref.No.P1/255(1)/2022-DPTO/SKLM dated 16.08.2023 and to pass such other orders.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the 3rd respondent orders in Ref.No: P1/255(1)/2022- DPTO/SKLM dated 16.08.2023 thereby passing an order to re-fix Petitioner's pay at minimum pay in the time scale applicable to Junior Scale Officer category on his reappointment on 21.12.2015, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other orders.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SRINIVAS AMBATI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC

¶27

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 13158/2024

¶29

Between:

¶30

VEDULA SRINIVASU, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, R/O FLAT 502, SRI GAJANANA RESIDENCY, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR DRONAMRAJU KALYANAMANDAPAM, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY TO GOVT. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR.

¶34

3

¶35

APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA.

¶36

DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶37

DEPOT MANAGER CUM DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER, PADERU, PADERU DEPOT, ALLURI SITARAMARAJU DISTRICT.

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ. Order or direction, particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order of the 4th respondent in Proceedings No DDO PDR/ADMIN/P1/2023 Dt 29.04.2024 thereby implementing re-fixation of pay at minimum pay in the time scale applicable to Junior Scale Officer category on petitioner's reappointment on 21.12.2015 and, thereby causing him a substantial loss in my Basic Pay from Rs. 1,12,610/- to Rs.74,770/- and consequential order of the 4th respondent dated 10.06.2024 to recover excess amount in final settlement of gratuity and leave encashment, as without jurisdiction, illegal, irrational, arbitrary and unjust, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, set aside the same and consequently grant stay of 4th respondent orders in Proceedings No DDO PDR/ADMIN/P1/2023 Dt 29.04.2024 and consequential order dated 10.06.2024 of 4th respondent to recover excess amount in final settlement of gratuity and leave encashment and to pass such other orders.

¶40

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of 4th respondent orders in Proceedings No:DDO PDR/ADMIN/P1/2023 Dt:29.04.2024 and consequential order dated 10.06.2024 of 4th respondent to recover excess amount in final settlement of gratuity and leave encashment pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other orders.

¶42

4

¶43

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.No.13158/2024 dated 01.07.2024 and pass such other orders.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶46

1.SRINIVAS AMBATI

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶48

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶49

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶50

WRIT PETITION NO: 22716/2025

¶51

Between:

¶52

VEDULA SRINIVASU, S/O LATE V. SATYANARAYANA SARMA, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC RETD. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, R/O FLAT 502, SRI GAJANANA RESIDENCY, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR DRONAMRAJU KALYANAMANDAPAM, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶53

...PETITIONER

¶54

AND

¶55

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY TO GOVT. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR.

¶56

APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA.

¶57

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APSRTC, VIZIANAGARAM ZONE, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶58

DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶59

DEPOT MANAGER CUM DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER, PADERU, PADERU DEPOT, ALLURI SITARAMARAJU DISTRICT.

¶60

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶61

5

¶62

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ. Order or direction, particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4, in not releasing petitioner's retirement benefits i.e. Leave Encashment, SBT, not uploading Gratuity Forms, PF Forms and Form-10-D for PF Pension, besides withholding of 2 annual increments for 2023 and 2024 without any valid reason, as illegal, irregular, irrational, arbitrary unjust and without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release petitioner's retirement benefits i.e. Leave Encashment, SBT and to process Gratuity, PF and PF Higher Option Pension with interest @ 24 percent per annum and to pass such other orders.

¶63

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶64

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release petitioner's retirement benefits i.e. Leave Encashment, SBT and to process Gratuity, PF and PF Higher Option Pension with interest @ 24% per annum pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other orders.

¶65

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶66

1.JAYA PRAKASH MADASU

¶67

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶68

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶69

The Court made the following:

¶70

6

¶71

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶72

W.P.Nos.26499 of 2023, 13158 of 2024 & 22716 of 2025

¶73

COMMON ORDER:

¶74

W.P.No.26499 of 2023 is filed to declare the order vide Ref.No.P1/255(1)/2022-DPTO/SKLM, dated 16.08.2023 issued by Respondent No.3 to re-fix the Petitioner’s pay at minimum pay in the time scale applicable to Junior Scale Officer’s category on his re-appointment on 21.12.2015, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶75

W.P.No.13158 of 2024 is filed questioning the Proceeding No.DD PDR/ ADMIN/ P1/ 2023, dated 29.04.2024 issued by Respondent No.4 in implementing re-fixation of pay at minimum pay in the time scale applicable to Junior Scale Officer’s category on Petitioner’s re-appointment on 21.12.2015, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶76

W.P.No.22716 of 2025 is filed to declare the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not releasing Petitioner’s retirement benefits i.e. Leave Encashment, SBT, not uploading Gratuity Forms, PF Forms and Form-10-D for PF Pension apart from withholding of two (2) annual increments for 2023 and 2024 without any valid reason, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶77

7

¶78

The genesis for all the three Writ Petitions is the Order dated 16.08.2023 re-fixing the pay of the Petitioner.

¶79

The facts in brief are as follows;

¶80

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Traffic Apprentice (Trainee) and subsequently promoted as Traffic Inspector-II, Senior Traffic Inspector, Assistant Manager (Traffic/Chief Inspector) and Depot Manager (Junior Scale Officer/Junior Scale Service) as per seniority and merit. On 13.03.2015, the Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted on 13.04.2025. Subsequently, the Petitioner sought for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement and the same was accepted vide Office Order No.Ea/693(2)/2015-PD, dated 08.12.2015 on certain conditions.

¶81

As per the conditions the period of acceptance of voluntary retirement of the Petitioner i.e., from 12.04.2015 till re-appointment was treated as “Not on Duty” and the Petitioner should repay the entire benefits received pursuant to acceptance of voluntary retirement with interest and that the Petitioner will be the junior most in JSO Cadre. However, the erstwhile pay of Depot Manager (Junior Scale Officer/Junior Scale Service) was continued to be paid. On 01.01.2020 all the employees of the Respondent-Corporation

¶82

8

¶83

were absorbed into Government. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 15.04.2023 by Respondent No.3 seeking for recovery of Rs.10,29,368/- on the ground that excess pay was made. The Petitioner submitted a representation seeking for furnishing of documents and informed the Respondent-authorities that no recovery can be made since the payments were made on account of continuity of service.

¶84

The Respondents filed their Counter-Affidavits stating that the Petitioner had submitted an application dated 28.02.2015 seeking permission for voluntary retirement from service and his request was considered and the Petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 12.04.2015 vide Office Order dated 13.04.2025.

¶85

Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted another application on 03.05.2015 i.e. within one month of his retirement stating that at the stage of depression, he took the decision for voluntary retirement; his efforts are not giving good results to the organization and since the left over service was only 5 years, he decided to serve the organization and requested to condone his action in applying for voluntary retirement.

¶86

9

¶87

The petitioner’s request for withdrawal of resignation was considered and he was re-appointed and posted as Personal Officer, Kurnool vide Office Order dated 08.12.2015 subject to the condition that he shall become junior most in JSO cadre. The re-appointment of the Petitioner was also ratified by the Corporation Board vide Resolution No.05/2018, dated 21.05.2018 duly applying clause applicable to withdrawal of resignation under Regulation 7(a) and 7(b) of APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964.

¶88

It is further stated in the Counter-Affidavits that in the re-appointment proceedings, it has been clearly mentioned that the Petitioner forfeits all his previous service, re-appointment will be treated as his first appointment and the Petitioner shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible and his pay should be fixed at the minimum of the scale of JSO and the work ‘not on duty’ were inadvertently mentioned in the re-appointment order.

¶89

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings do not refer to any misconduct or misrepresentation by the Petitioner in seeking to re-fix the pay and in the absence of any misrepresentation by the Petitioner, the amounts even assuming are in excess cannot be recovered, as the Petitioner had retired from

¶90

10

¶91

service at the fag-end of service i.e., on 31.08.2024. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer) and Others¹ and Pramod Kumar Sinha v. Union of India and Others² .

¶92

The learned Standing Counsel for the RespondentCorporation would submit that the appointment of the Petitioner on 08.12.2015 was by placing the Petitioner as junior most in JSO cadre and that there is a variance in the scale of pay of the Petitioner and the same was sought to be recovered. The Standing Counsel

¶93

for the Respondent-Corporation submitted that the impugned proceedings need not be interfered with.

¶94

Heard the respective counsel.

¶95

The Petitioner had submitted for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted w.e.f. 12.04.2015. Subsequently, the Petitioner intended for recall of voluntary retirement and had submitted a representation to that effect on 03.05.2015. As there was no provision for withdrawal of voluntary retirement, the representation of the Petitioner was referred to the Board and pending consideration

¶96

1 (2015) 4 SCC 334

¶97

2 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 8959

¶98

11

¶99

of Board, the Petitioner was re-appointed as Depot Manager subject to the following conditions;

¶100

“1. The period from acceptance of Voluntary Retirement of Sri V. Srinivasu i.e., from 12-04-2015 till he reports for duty on re-appointment shall be treated as “Not on Duty” for the purpose of leave, increment, gratuity and other service benefits, if any;

¶101

2. Sri V. Srinivasu shall pay back the settlement dues if any received by him with interest;

¶102

3. Sri V. Srinivasu shall become junior most in JSO Cadre, since withdrawal of his Voluntary retirement is accepted duly applying the regulation of withdrawal of resignation within two years from the date of acceptance of resignation;

¶103

4. On re-appointment Sri V. Srinivasu is posted as PO/Kurnool.”

¶104

Subsequently, the proceedings dated 08.12.2015 were ratified by the Board of Respondent-Corporation vide Resolution No.05/2018 dated 21.05.2018. As per the Proceedings dated 08.12.2015 as extracted above, the Petitioner was treated as junior most in the JSO cadre and re-fixation by the RespondentCorporation in terms of his re-appointment as junior most in JSO cadre cannot be found fault with as the same is in consonance with the Office Order dated 08.12.2015.

¶105

12

¶106

However, in the Counter-Affidavit or in the impugned proceedings there is no reference of misrepresentation by the Petitioner with regard to excess pay paid to him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Mashi ’s case after considering the case law in vogue till that time specified situations when the recovery is impermissible. The Paragraph No.18 thereof is extracted below;

¶107

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, 9 based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶108

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

¶109

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶110

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶111

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶112

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery, if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

¶113

13

¶114

The conditions (ii) and (iii) squarely apply to the facts of this case. The above Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds good as on date and was followed in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala³ and Jogeshwar Sahoo and Others v. The District Judge, Cuttack⁴ .

¶115

Therefore, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions;

¶116

(i) The Petitioner’s pay shall be re-fixed as junior most in the JSO cadre w.e.f. 12.04.2015 with appropriate increments as per Rules till his retirement;

¶117