Allowed¶11

Ragam Venkateswara Rao v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Apr 2025WP/5325/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess leave encashment from retired PSU employees; PL/HPL encashment 300-day cap; retrospective application of amended Circular No.36/2016 prohibited; adjustment from pension corpus and LIC annuity; DCIL / Dredging Corporation of India; Ministry of Shipping direction; DPE pay revision 2007; deferred wage character of leave encashment; Rafiq Masih doctrine (AIR 2015 SC 696) — recovery from retired employees impermissible; Jogeswar Sahoo (2025 INSC 449); writ of mandamus under Article 226; Visakhapatnam; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; decided 16.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed (prayers included declaration that the recovery notifications dated 07.06.2017 and 29.01.2018 are illegal and arbitrary); miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed; no order as to costs. ¶11

Ragam Venkateswara Rao Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery by DCIL of alleged excess leave encashment (PL/HPL) from the pension corpus of employees who retired prior to 01.11.2016, pursuant to notice No.DCI/HR/SE/2017 dated 07.06.2017 and Reminder-I dated 29.01.2018, is illegal and arbitrary. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The action of the respondents in recovering the alleged excess paid towards leave encashment after the petitioners' retirement is illegal and arbitrary.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Petitioners who superannuated prior to 01.11.2016 were paid their eligible leave encashment in conformity with the service rules then prevailing, after verification by the HR Department, Internal Audit Department and approval of the Competent Authority; the amended Circular No.36/2016 came into force only on 01.11.2016 and cannot be implemented retrospectively (w.e.f. 01.01.2006).

¶8

Key takeaways

Leave encashment represents 'amounts earned' by employees for services rendered without availing leave standing to their credit; it is in the nature of a deferred wage, and having availed the petitioners' services without allowing them to enjoy their leave, the Corporation owed an obligation to that extent.ratio¶8
Recovering the alleged excess payments after a lapse of several years from retirement (which preceded 01.11.2016), under an amendment that came into force only on 01.11.2016, is in violation of the Supreme Court's judgment in Rafiq Masih; the wrongful recoveries from retired employees under the new corporate pension scheme drastically reduced their monthly pension.ratio¶10
It is not the respondents' case that the excess amounts were paid on account of misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioners; the leave encashment was paid as per the service rule prevailing at the time of retirement.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa — Writ Petition No. 5325 of 2018, decided 16.04.2025. Eighty-three petitioners — retired employees of Dredging Corporation of India Limited (DCIL) who superannuated before 01.11.2016, led by Ragam Venkateswara Rao, together with the DCI Retired Employees Welfare Association (Regd. No. 677/2009) — challenged DCIL's notice No.DCI/HR/SE/2017 dated 07.06.2017 and Reminder-I dated 29.01.2018 recovering alleged excess leave encashment (PL/HPL) by adjustment from their pension corpus under the new corporate pension scheme, pursuant to a Ministry of Shipping direction (Letter No.SS-28030/2/2015-DCI dated 25.01.2017). Held: (i) the petitioners were paid their eligible leave encashment in conformity with the service rules prevailing at retirement, after verification by HR and Internal Audit and approval of the Competent Authority; (ii) amended Circular No.36/2016 dated 10.11.2016, capping PL/HPL encashment at an overall 300 days, came into force only on 01.11.2016 and cannot be implemented retrospectively (w.e.f. 01.01.2006); (iii) leave encashment is a deferred wage and constitutes 'amounts earned'; recovery thereof from retired employees years after superannuation, absent misrepresentation or fraud, is illegal and arbitrary and violates State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, AIR 2015 SC 696 (whose impermissible-recovery situations were reproduced in Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack, 2025 INSC 449). Writ petition allowed; no order as to costs.

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010113482018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 5325/2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530 002

¶11

SOMAYAJULA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. SHRI (LATE) SURYANARAYANA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.2, HILL VIEW APARTMENTS, SEETHAMMADHARA N.E., VISAKHAPATNAM-530 013 CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶12

VOLETI VENKATA NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O LATE NARASIMHAM, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶13

PEMMARAJU VENAKA VITTAL, S/O LATE P.V.CHALAPATHI RAO, AGED 67 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶14

ANDEY ASHOK KUMAR, S/O LATE A.APPA RAO, AGED 68 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶15

DWARAM VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O LATE D.THAMMAYYA, AGED 62 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶16

SARATHI TRIPATHI, S/O LATE MADAN MOHAN TRIPATHI, AGED 63 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶17

DANGETI VEERA PRASAD GUPTA, S/O LATE D.SUBRAHMANYAM GUPTA, AGED 64 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA

¶18

¶19

NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶20

KARRI SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE K.HARINARAYANA, AGED 66 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶21

ARISETTY PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O LATE A.SAMBHAMURTY, AGED 67 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶22

NATTI ANANDA RAO, S/O LATE N.VENKATA SWAMY, AGED 65 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶23

UPPALAPATI SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE, S/O LATE U.HANUMA RAO, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA530

¶24

DANGETI KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMAMOHAN RAO, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶25

SURAPANENI SAI RAMA KRISHHA PRASAD, S/O LATE S.PRABHAKARA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶26

VISARAPU ATCHARAO, S/O LATE V.APPALASWAMY, AGED 68 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶27

DUKKA APPA RAO, S/O LATE D.NARASINGA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶28

VITTANALA ADINARAYANA, S/O LATE V.VENKANNA, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶29

KILIANI SATYANARAYANA, S/O K.CHALLA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶30

CHINTHAKAYALA SURYA SANKARA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE CH.V.SURYANARAYANA, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM

¶31

¶32

VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶33

SENAPATHI RAMA SATYA ESWARA RAO, S/O LATE CHINNAYYA, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶34

BALUEPALLI MADHU SUDHAN, S/O SAMBASIVA SASTRY, AGED 69 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶35

GUDLA RAMI REDDY, S/O LATE G.LAKSHMAYYA, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶36

VETCHA SREERAMA MURTY, S/O LATE BULLI VEERASWAMY, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶37

VISWANADHA NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O LATE V.S.NARAYANA, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶38

PIILA TRIPURANTHAKA PATRUDU, S/O LATE P.NARAYANA PATRUDU, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶39

KOLLURU VENKATADRI SARMA, S/O K.KAMAVADHANULU, AGED 69 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶40

PULIGADDA VIDYADHAR, S/O. P.MURALIDHARA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶41

VEDULA BADRI NARAYANA MURTY, S/O LATE V.NARASIMHA CHENELU CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶42

PATRUNI VARA PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE P. SATYANARAYANA MURTY, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA530

¶43

¶44

KILLI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE K.JAGANNADHAM, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶45

KARUPOTHU SPURGEON, S/O LATE JOHN PHILIP. AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶46

MANUKONDA BHASKARA RAO, S/O LATE M.PRABHUDAS, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶47

ASHOK KUMAR PAL, S/O LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA PAL, AGED 70 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶48

GOGULA RAMA DURGA PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE G.CHINA SATYANARAYANA, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶49

ARANI RAMANA RAO, S/O A.ANANTHA RAO, AGED 69 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶50

GIDDI NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O G.ARJANNA, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶51

KADIYALA BUTCHIBABU, S/O LATE K.V. RAMAYYA, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶52

MOHAMMED GOUSE MOINUDDIN, S/O LATE M.MOHIUDDIN, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶53

POTHABATHULA MURALI, S/O P. SRIRAMA MUIRTY, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶54

KARANAM UMAMAHESWARA RAO, S/O LATE GURU NAIDU, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶55

¶56

RAMANI MOHAN BISWAS, S/O LATE UPENDRANATH BISWAS, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶57

CHAGANTI GOURIPATHI RAO, S/O LATE C.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA530

¶58

SETTALURI SWAMINADH, S/O S.PARDHASARADHI, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶59

AKUNDI VENKATA KAMA SASTRY, S/O A.JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶60

THADIMALLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO, S/O LATE SURYANARAYANA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶61

ITHIGANI NARASIMHA GOURI SANKAR, S/O LATE I.NOOKARAJU, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶62

GEDELA SATYANARAYANA, S/O G.APPALA NAIDU, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶63

CHALLAKONDA PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE BHANOJI RAO, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶64

ANNAVARAPU BHUJANGA RAO, S/O A.SREERAMULU, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶65

GANAPATIBHOTLA RAMA NARAYANA, S/O LATE G.V.SATYANARAYANA, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶66

TAMMINANA PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE T.YERAKANNA, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.

¶67

¶68

SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶69

PANAGANAPALLI VENKATA PADMINI, W/O P.SATYANARAYANA MURTY, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA530

¶70

BALIVADA KAILASARAO PATNAIK, S/O LATE B.SUNDARA NARAYANA, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶71

CHEBOLI SUBBA RAO, S/O LATE C. RAMA MURTHY, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶72

NADIPALLI RATANLAL GANDHI, S/O LATE N.VISHANADHAM, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶73

KOTNI ESWARA RAO, S/O LATE K.SATYAM, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶74

KOMMU KIRTHI, S/O K.BALARAMA KRISHNA, AGED 56 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶75

BUDDHARAJU VENKATAPATHI RAJU, S/O LATE B.NARAYANA RAJU, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA530

¶76

MADA HEMA SUNDARAIAH, S/O M.VENKATA SETTY, AGED 69 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶77

KALIDINDI VISWANADHA RAJU, S/O LATE K.SURYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA530

¶78

BONDA SATYANARAYANA MURTY, S/O LATE B.SRIHARI RAO, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,

¶79

¶80

BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶81

1. PATIBANDLA ANANTHA VENKATA RAO, S/O LATE P.V.NARASINGA RAO, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶82

KORRAPATI RADHA KRISHNA, S/O K.SURYA NARAYANA RAO, 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶83

CHENNA RAJESWARI, S/O LATE CHENNA DHARMARAO, AGED 67 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶84

APPIKONDA HARINADHA RAO, S/O LATE LAKSHMANA RAO, AGED 69 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶85

PARAVASTU PATTABJHIRAMAN GOVINDACHARI, S/O LATE P.SRIRAMACHARI, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶86

S.SUBBARATHINAM, S/O LATE SHANMUGAM, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶87

ARUP KUMAR GHOSH, S/O LATE PRABAT KUMAR GHOSH, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶88

GOURANGA MUZAUMDAR, S/O LATE AMULYA BHUSHAN MAZUMDAR, AGED 71 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶89

MUNGAMURI SAI PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE M.V. RAJA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶90

P.DALAYYA REDDY, S/O P.REDDY, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶91

VARASALA SAMPADA RAO, S/O V. RAMA SWAMY, AGED 66

¶92

¶93

YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶94

S.VICTOR SAGAYA RAJ, S/O LATE V.SELVARAJ, AGED 61 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶95

K.MADHAVA RAO, S/O LATE K.SURYANARAYANA CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶96

PACHIPENTA VENKATA NARAYANA RAO, S/O LATE P.SYAMASUNDARA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶97

M.BHASKARA RAO, S/O LATE M.GOPALA RAO, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶98

TADIMALLA SYAMALA KUMARI, W/O T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶99

MEENAKSHI SUBHADRA, W/O LATE N.S.PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶100

VARIGALA KRISHNAVENI, W/O V.V. RAMANA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶101

SRINIVASAN RAGHURAMA KRISHNAN, S/O LATE C.SRINIVASAN, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶102

NOKALA SURYA PRAKASH RAO, S/O LATE N.BHASKARA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶103

VELIVETI VENKATA RAO, S/O LATE V.KAMESHWARA RAO, AGED 67 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530

¶104

DCI RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (REGD. NO.

¶105

¶106

677/2009), FLAT NO. 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 15-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SOMAYAJULA SATYANARAYANA, S/O SHRI (LATE) SURYANARAYANA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/O VISAKHAPATNAM

¶107

...PETITIONER(S)

¶108

AND

¶109

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAWAN, BLOCK NO.14, CGO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110 003, REP. BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

¶110

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, 1, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 1, REP. BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

¶111

DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED DCIL, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), (REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS) DREDGE HOUSE, PORT GYMKHANA CLUB ROAD, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 530001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶112

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶113

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶114

1.M KESAVA RAO

¶115

2.K UDAYA SRI

¶116

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶117

1.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶118

2.J SUDHEER

¶119

The Court made the following:

¶120

ORDER:

¶121

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

¶122

the following prayer for:

¶123

“.... a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ i) declaring the letter No.DCl/HR/SE/2017, dated. 07.06.2017 including Reminder-I vide letter dated 29.01.2018 and other similar letters, notifying the recovery of excess payment towards the encashment of leave (PL/HPL), at the time of superannuation/resignation, as illegal and arbitrary and (ii) direct the respondents to transfer the amounts of the petitioners flowing

¶124

¶125

out of the extension of Revision of Pay Scales, 2007 to LIC without any adjustments forthwith and (iii) direct the respondents to pay dues of annuity pension together with interest to the petitioners from the date of annuity pension till the actual payment of amounts by the respondent corporation to LIC and (iv) pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.”

¶126

2. Heard Sri M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Deputy Solicitor General and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri J.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶127

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the leave encashment amounts were paid to the Petitioners as per their leave credit that too after verification by the concerned departments. Learned counsel would further submit that no excess payments were made to the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the amended Circular No.36/2016 dated 10.11.2016 was given effect from 01.11.2016 and the Petitioners retired from service prior to 01.11.2016. As such, no excess payment towards leave encashment to the Petitioners was made. Hence, the question of recovering the amount from the Petitioners does not arise. It is further argued that, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih¹ held that recovery of the amounts from the retired employees is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The said judgment specifies that the employer has no right to recover the payments even in the circumstances of payment made wrongly or mistakenly. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the Petitioners herein also.

¶128

1 AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696

¶129

¶130

4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders in the light of the memo and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶131

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, by reiterating the contents of the counter, would submit that as per the directions of the Ministry of Shipping vide its Letter No.SS-28030/2/2015-DCI, dated 25.01.2017, the Respondent-Corporation issued notices to all the retired employees including the Petitioners requesting them to refund the excess payment drawn towards leave encashment. Reminders were also sent in this regard, but none of the retired employees remitted the excess amount. As such, the Corporation had to adjust the excess amount from the pension corpus of the retired employees and balance, net of adjustment was released for the purchase of Annuity through LIC. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case referred to supra, relates to excess payment made to the employees in the form of salary or emoluments while in service but not to except payment of terminal benefits made after the retirement of the employees.

¶132

6. The contents of the affidavit filed by the Petitioners, in brief, are as follows:

¶133

(i) The Petitioners worked in Dredging Corporation of India Limited (DCIL) and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation prior to 01.11.2016. Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises issued Office Memorandum

¶134

¶135

No.2(70)/08-DPE(WC)GL-XVI/08, dated 26.11.2008 revising the scales of pay of Board level and below Board level executives and non-unionized Supervisors in Central Public Sector Enterprises w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and the same was notified by the Respondent-Corporation. The superannuation benefits payable to the employees of DCIL were approved by the competent authority vide letter No.SS-28036/1/2014-DCI, dated 05.06.2015 and the Petitioners were paid the said benefits including the encashment of the leaves i.e., HPL and PL. As per the amended provisions, all the employees of DCIL were permitted to encash PL and HPL, on retirement, subject to overall limit of 300 days and the said amendment has come into force w.e.f 01.11.2016.

¶136

(ii) That being so, Respondent-Corporation has given a given a notice bearing No.DCI/HR/SE/2017, dated 07.06.2017 stating that an amount of Rs.70,905/- was paid in excess of his entitlement and directing him to remit the same to the Corporation, failing which, the said amount will be adjusted against any dues payable to him by the Corporation. On that, a representation dated 26.06.2017 was given by the DCI Retired Employees’ Welfare Association opposing the said action of DCIL. Without responding to the said representation, the Respondent-Corporation issued Reminder-I to Petitioner No.14 dated 29.01.2018 so also to the other Petitioners reiterating the earlier notice. Under the guise of the notices issued, the Respondent – Corporation have made recoveries from the pension corpus without putting the Petitioners on notice and thereby their pensionary benefits are drastically reduced.

¶137

¶138

(iii) Petitioners have retired from service prior to 01.11.2016 and as such, as per the service rules which were in existence at that time, they have been paid the accumulations of PL and HPL as per their eligibility. The service rules were amended subsequently w.e.f 01.11.2016 vide Circular No.36/2016, dated 10.11.2016 restricting the encashment of PL and HPL w.e.f 01.11.2016 only. The change of the downsizing of the limits cannot be made unilaterally, more so with retrospective effect. The Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry vide letter No.03(05)/2014-PE-XI, dated 15.10.2016 directed that no recovery of HPL encashment already allowed is to be made as it is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that employees were not put on advance notice and company allowed HPL even in situations other than on medical grounds. The said directive is squarely applicable to the Petitioners also.

¶139

7. At this stage, for ready reference, it is apposite to extract the service rules with regard to Half-Pay Leave (HPL) and Privilege Leave(PL) and its amendment, which read as follows:

¶140

“ 11.5 HALF-PAY LEAVE

¶141

20 days for each completed year of service which may be taken either on Medical Certificate or on private affairs. Commuted leave not exceeding half the amount of half-pay leave due may be granted on Medical Certificato subject to the following conditions:

¶142

a) When commuted leave is granted, twice the amount of such leave shall be debited against the half pay leave due. b) The total earned leave and commuted leave taken in conjunction shall not exceed 240 days provided that no commuted leave may be granted under this rule unless the

¶143

¶144

authority competent to sanction leave has reason to believe that the employee shall return to duty on its expiry. Half pay leave may be combined with fully pay leave, but the maximum amount of half-pay leave admissible at a time, shall not exceed 240 days.

¶145

c) Half-pay leave for a period not exceeding 480 days, commuted to 240 days with full pay, can be encashed in the following circumstances ective from 01.04.90.

¶146

i) Retirement from Service

¶147

ii) Voluntary Retirement

¶148

iii) Cessation of service after attaining the age of 50 years

¶149

iv) Death of the employee

¶150

v) Leaving the service of DCI for joining other Public Sector Enterprises.

¶151

(Circular No.25/91, dated.10-7-91)

¶152

(Circular No.18/2000, dated.24-08-2000)

¶153

11.11 ENCASHIVMENT OF PRIVILEGE LEAVE:

¶154

a) While in the service of the Corporation.

¶155

All employees are permitted to encash Privilege Leave standing at his/her credit, subject to condition that a minimum of 30 days is available at his/her credit. Encashment of Privilege Leave as above can be permitted once in a year and for 60 days at a time.

¶156

(Amendment Circular No.45/84, dt.1-12-1984)

¶157

b) At the time of leaving the services of the Corporation.

¶158

All employees may encash the balance of privilege leave standing to their credit subject to maximum of 300 days, including any period for adjustment of notice period etc., in case, the employee retires or leaves the service of the Corporation or dies while in service. (Circular No.6/98, dt. 19-2-98 w.e.f. 1-7-97).

¶159

CIRCULAR No.36/2016

¶160

Sub: Amendment to the Rules Encashment of Pl, and HPI. Reg

¶161

As may encash balance of privilege leave standing to their credit subject to maximum of 300 days, including mypnod for adjustment of notice etc., in case, the employee retires or leaves the service of the Corporation or dies while in service w.e.f.01.07.1997. Also as per the Rule 11.3 (c) of Service les, Half-pay Leave for a period not exceeding 480 days, commuted to 240 days with full pay, an be encashed in case, the

¶162

¶163

employee retires or leaves the service of the Corporation or dies while in service etc...

¶164

2 As per the guidelines of DPE, the existing provisions relating to encashment of leave will be amended in service rules as under:-

¶165

"All employees are permitted to encash Privilege leave and Half-Pay Leave on retirement subject over all limit of 300 days".

¶166

The above amendment comes into force with effect from 01.11.2016.”

¶167

8. As seen from the material placed on record and the contentions raised

¶168

on both sides, admittedly, Petitioners, on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., prior to 01.11.2016, were paid their eligible leave encashment by Respondent-Corporation in conformity with the Services Rules, prevailing at that time and duly approved by the Board of Directors of DCIL. The said amounts were paid after due process of verification by its HR Department, Internal Audit Department and the approval of the Competent Authority. As admitted by the Respondent – Corporation in their counter, the amended Circular No.36/2016, dated 10.11.2016 was given effect from 01.11.2016. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioners retired from service prior to the said Circular. The Respondent – Corporation cannot implement the said Rule w.e.f from 01.01.2006 i.e., with retrospective effect. Having informed the employees that they can avail leave encashment at ‘actuals’ without limiting it and took their productive services, on a subsequent date i.e., after their superannuation, the Respondents cannot recover it by restricting their leave to 300 days. Once the Respondent Corporation availed the service

¶169

¶170

of the Petitioners without allowing them to enjoy their leave, the Corporation owe an obligation to the Petitioners to the extent of that amount of leave. The said amounts should be considered as ‘amounts earned’ by the Petitioners for having contributed their services without availing the leave standing to their credit. Leave encashment is like a deferred wage. In such circumstances, the action of the Respondents to recover the alleged excess paid amount towards leave encashment, that too after their retirement, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶171

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jogeswar Sahoo & Others vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others² , while allowing the appeal preferred by the Employees/Stenographers therein, referred Rafiq’s case (supra) , wherein, with regard to the permissibility of the employer for recovery from the employees, it was held as under:

¶172

“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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶173

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and ClassIV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

¶174

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

¶175

(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.

¶176

2 2025 INSC 449

¶177

¶178

(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.

¶179

(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.

¶180

10. Further, Respondent – Corporation has amended the leave encashment

¶181

Rule, in November, 2016 only and issued Office Memorandum No.36 dated 10.11.2016 clearly mentioning therein that the amended Rule will come into force w.e.f 01.11.2016. However, as evident from the Counter, at the behest of the C.A.G, Ministry of Shipping or Department of Public enterprises, the Respondent – Corporation had resorted to and recovered the alleged excess payments towards leave encashment from the Petitioners, that too after a lapse of several years from the date of their retirement, which was prior to 01.11.2016. This act of the Respondents, is in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rafiq’s case (supra) . The Respondent Corporation made the wrongful, illegal and unjust recoveries from out of the amounts of the Petitioners, who are retired employees, under new corporate pension scheme. Due to the said act, the amount of monthly pension of the Petitioners got drastically reduced. Moreover, it is not the case of the Respondents that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the Petitioners, the excess amounts have been paid. The leave encashment has been paid to the Petitioners as per the prevailing service rule at the time of their retirement.

¶182

¶183

11. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is

¶184

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶185

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶186

closed.

¶187

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶188

Date:16.04.2025 Dinesh

¶189

¶190

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶191

W.P.No.5325 of 2018

¶192

Dt.16.04.2025

¶193

Dinesh

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notice No.DCI/HR/SE/2017 dated 07.06.2017 issued by DCIL calling upon retired employees (instance cited: Petitioner No.14) to remit alleged excess leave encashment of Rs.70,905/-, failing which adjustment against dues payable; followed by Reminder-I dated 29.01.2018; recoveries thereafter effected from the pension corpus.¶6(ii)
Dredging Corporation of India Limited (Respondent No.3) · 07.06.2017
Prior proceeding
Ministry of Shipping, by Letter No.SS-28030/2/2015-DCI dated 25.01.2017, directed DCIL to issue notices to all retired employees to refund excess leave encashment; reminders were sent but none of the retired employees remitted the excess amount.¶5
Prior proceeding
DCIL adjusted the alleged excess amount from the pension corpus of the retired employees and released the balance, net of adjustment, to LIC for purchase of annuity.¶5
Prior proceeding
DCI Retired Employees' Welfare Association gave a representation dated 26.06.2017 opposing the recovery action; without responding, DCIL issued Reminder-I dated 29.01.2018 and made recoveries from the pension corpus without putting the petitioners on notice, drastically reducing their pensionary benefits.¶6(ii)
Prior proceeding
DPE Office Memorandum No.2(70)/08-DPE(WC)GL-XVI/08 dated 26.11.2008 revised scales of pay of Board level and below Board level executives and non-unionized supervisors in Central PSEs w.e.f. 01.01.2007, and was notified by DCIL.¶6(i)
Prior proceeding
Superannuation benefits payable to DCIL employees, including encashment of HPL and PL, were approved by the competent authority vide letter No.SS-28036/1/2014-DCI dated 05.06.2015 and paid to the petitioners.¶6(i)
Prior proceeding
Amended provisions permitted all DCIL employees to encash PL and HPL on retirement subject to an overall limit of 300 days, effective 01.11.2016 (Circular No.36/2016 dated 10.11.2016); the petitioners retired prior to that date.¶6(i)
Prior proceeding
Government of India, Department of Heavy Industry, letter No.03(05)/2014-PE-XI dated 15.10.2016 directed that no recovery of HPL encashment already allowed be made, as it is not legally sustainable, employees not having been put on advance notice.¶6(iii)

Ragam Venkateswara Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragam Venkateswara Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamba Mahesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Hidayathulla Vs the State of Ap

K. Sheela Sowjanya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Karri Rama Devi Vs the Collector and District Magistrate and Chairman

Gonthena Raj Kumar @ Gonthena Lova Raj Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.v.Ramesh, Vs Dr. Narayam Bharath Gupta