Bonta Koteswara Rao Vs the Apcpdcl

Bonta Koteswara Rao, S/o.Krishnaiah, Retired-employee, Aged 62 years R/o. D.No.21-02-23,Bonthavari Street, Near Gopala Swamy Temple, Sattenapalli, Palanadu district.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The APCPDCL, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Near ITI College Road, opposite Ramesh Hospitals, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶13

The Superintendent Engineer Operations, APCPDCL, Sangadigunata, Guntur District

¶14

The Executive Engineer Operations, APCPDCL, Narasaraopeta, Palanadu District

¶15

Senior Accounts Officer, O/o. Superintendent Engineer (Operations), APCPDCL Vidyuth Bhavan, Sangadigunta, Ponnur-1, Guntur

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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 order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deducting an amount of rupees 4,19,135/- (Four Lakhs Nineteen Thousand One Hundred

¶18

'V

¶19

^ Thirty Five Rupees) from my retirement benefits as^{arbitraryandviolativeof} Art- 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and^{consequentlydirectthe} respondents to pay the same with interest at the rate^{of12percentageper} last drawn annum and to pay my pensionary benefits on the basis of my salary and to pay difference of gratuity and difference^{ofpensionalongwith} commuted value of pension.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix my pension on the^{basisofmylastdrawn} basic without reducing the basic due to recovery effected.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Between:

¶24

The APCPDCL, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Near ITl College Road, opposite Ramesh Hospitals, Vijayawada,^NTRDistrict.

¶25

The Superintendent Engineer Operations, APCPDCL,^{Sangadigunata,} Guntur District

¶26

The Executive Engineer Operations, APCPDCL, Narasaraopeta, Palanadu District

¶27

Senior Accounts Officer, O/o. Superintendent Engineer (Operations), APCPDCL Vidyuth Bhavan, Sangadigunta, Ponnur-1, Guntur.

¶28

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶29

AND

¶30

Bonta Koteswara Rao, S/o.Krishnaiah Retired-employee, Aged 62 years, R/o. D.No.21-02-23,Bonthavari Street, Near Gopala Swamy Temple, Sattenapalli, Palanadu district.

¶31

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶32

w

¶33

c

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the respondents herein to file counter affidavit in the above writ else the respondents company will be put to serious loss and suffering.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M PITCHAIAH

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) Counsel for the Respondents:

¶37

The Court made the following order:

¶38

1

¶39

APHC010070172023

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶41

[3460]

¶42

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶43

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶44

PRESENT

¶45

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO: 3456/?n9.?

Between:

Bonta Koteswara Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

The Apcpdcl and Others

¶52

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶54

1.M PITCHAIAH

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶56

1 .V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

¶57

¶58

The Court made the following:

¶59

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶60

WRIT PETITION NO: 3456/2023

¶61

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondents in deducting an amount of Rs.4,19,135/- from the retirement benefits of the Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶62

The facts leading to filing of the present Writ^Petition are as follows:

¶63

The Petitioner had joined the Respondent Corporation as Contingent Watchman on 14.12.1979 in erstwhile A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Thereafter, he was selected as a regular watchman under O^and M Establishment as per the Orders of Superintendent Engineer, Vijayawada in the year 1982 and joined duty on 18.05.1982.^On attaining the age of 60 years, the Petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2021. At the time of retirement, the Respondent Corporation had paid the retirement benefits towards Gratuity leave encashment, GPF, Commuted Pension and Earned Leave Encashment, but deducted Rs.4,19,135/towards excess pay/Dept Recovery. Though no information was initially given to the Petitioner as to why the amount was withheld, eventually,^the impugned Proceedings were issued stating that the amount of

¶64

3

¶65

Rs.4,19,135/- was recovered towards excess pay and^allowances on account of wrong pay fixation.

¶66

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents would contend that the present Writ Petition is filed^after a^long lapse of 4 years and therefore, the same cannot be^entertained.

¶67

Heard the respective counsel.

¶68

It is to be noted that the Petitioner had retired from service in the year 2021 and it is not the case of the Respondent Corporation that the Petitioner had influenced in making wrong pay fixation.

¶69

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab^and others v Rafix Masih ( White Washer)^ has held that after considering the case law in vogue at the point of time^fixedcertain parameters at pargraph No. 18, situations where recovery^should not be effected from the employees. Paragraph No. 18^ofthesaid judgment reads as under:

¶70

“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, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as

¶71

(2f;15)4SCC334

¶72

4

¶73

a ready reference, summarise the following few situations wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law:

¶74

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-Ill and Class-IV service (or Group 'C and Group 'D' service), (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery,

¶75

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

¶76

(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.

¶77

(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.

¶78

In view of the above judgment, the recovery from the retired employees or the individuals who are due to retire within one year

¶79

is impermissible.

¶80

The same principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thomas Daniel v State of Kerala and others^ and Jogeswar Sahoo and other v The District Judge, Cuttack^and others^.

¶81

The Petitioner's case clearly fits under the aforementioned

¶82

^ 2022 Live Law (SC) 438 ^ 2025 Livelaw (SC) 396

¶83

5

¶84

category. Therefore, the impugned recovery by the Respondents towards excess pay and allowance due to wrong pay fixation cannot be sustained.

¶85

The contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents with regard to delay is mischieved considering the categorical judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the retention of the money being in contravention of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the delay would not be material to reject the case of the Petitioner..

¶86

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondent Authorities are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,19,135/to the Petitioner with interest at 7.5% p.a. within a period of three (03) months. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶87

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,^shall stand closed.

¶88

Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶89

//TRUE COPY//

¶90

To,

¶91