Allowed

Ch. Venkata Sukumari v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC22 Aug 2023WP/26181/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund Rs. 6,43,278 to a retired teacher whose pension was deducted for alleged excess pay made during her service, applying the "Rafiq Masih" principle that recovery from retired employees is generally impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to re-pay the amount of Rs. 6,43,278 recovered from the petitioner's pensionary benefits within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Ch. Venkata Sukumari Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

432s7 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26181 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch.Venkata Sukumari, W/o.G.Krishnanyaneyulu, Aged 63 Years, Retd. Grade-l Telugu Pandit, ST. Marys Gids High School (T lr/.), R/o H.No.'1 9-'1 007, Nagarjuna Nagar, LIC back side, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Accountant General (A&E), Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Education Officer, Nalgonda District.

¶14

The Head Master, ST. Mary's Gid's High School (T.M.), trrliryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or directron especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that a) Petitioner did not come under the purview of the Act-l of 2005 dated 01.O1.2005 and the same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner since the petitioner was promoted/ observed in a substantive vacancy of Grand-l language Pandit posts and her pay was fixed in Grade-l language Pandit scale and the same was drawing prior to the said enactment. b) Further declare that the action of the respondents to step down the petitioner pay from '10.08.1 983 to till her retirement and the further action of the respondents in recovering the amounts paid to petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unco nstitutiona I and contrary to the^judgment of this Honourable Court in W.P.No.2'145712004 and batch dated 16.10.2010 (2010 (3) ALf 744(FB) c) And consequentty declare that petitioner is entitled to get her pension and pensionary benefits as per her last pay drawn by directing the respondents to refix the petitioners pay without applying an Act-l of 2005 and send the pension proposals on the last pay drawn by the petitioner to the Accountant General, AE, AP Hyderabad for sanction and

¶17

also further direct to refund the recovered/withhold amounts to the pelitioner within a stipulated period.

¶18

l.A.NO:'l OF 2021

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circums:ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hrgh Court may lre pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount recovered/withhold from the retiremental benefits of the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri.Srinivasa Rao Madiraju

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 : AGP For Services - |

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri. K.Balakrishna

¶23

The Court made the following Order :-

¶24

I I I

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶26

WRIT PETI TION No.26181 of 2o2 L

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioner is aggrieved of recovering/with hold ing an amount of As.6,q3,21B-O0 from her pensionary benefits.

¶29

I have heard the submissions of Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing lor the Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 and perused the record

¶30

3, Petitioner has worked as Language Pandit and retired from service on 30.06.2014. Thereafter, when she submitted her pension proposals, the office of Accountant General vide proceedings, dated 29.O9.2014, returned the pension proposals by proposing to recover an amount of Rs.6,43,27 B-00 on the ground that said amount was paid to the petitioner in excess while she was in service. According to the petitioner, while in service, her post was upgraded from Language Pandit Grade-II to Grade-I vide G.O.Ms.No.330, dated 10.08.1983, however, after her retirement, the recovery was proposed on the ground that the said G.O. was cancelled subsequently. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that since

¶31

)

¶32

¶33

2 JS, ] W.P.No.216781 of^2O21

¶34

the amount^proposed to be recovered^was not^paid to^{herr due to her} mistake, the same cannot be recovered now

¶35

4, Respondents have not filed counter affidavit

¶36

It is contended by^{the learned counsel for petitioner thatthe} issue raised in the^present writ^{petition is squarely coveredby the} judgment oF Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others

¶37

v Rafiq Masih (White Washer)1,^{wherein,it is held thzrt the excess} amount erroneously^{paid to an employeeby the employ€)r, cannotbe} recovered after retirement.

¶38

The learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader at)pearing for} respondents has fairly^{submittedthat the subjectmatter of the writ} petition is covered by the aforesaid^{judgment of Hon'llleSupreme} Cou rt.

¶39

In^para 18 of the^{aforesaidjudgment in Rafiq lilasih'scase} (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court^{has postulated the following} situations where recoveries^{by employer would be imperrnissible:}

¶40

"l B. It is not possibte to^{postulate all situations of} hardship which^{would governemptoy=eson} the issue of recovery,^{where paymentshave} mistakenly been made by the^{employer, in} excess of their entitlement. Be that as^it

'2015(4)^{scc 334}

JS, I

W.P.No.26187 of 2027

may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the empioyers, would be impermissible in law:

(i)

(ii)

( iii)

(iv)

(v)

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

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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. "

¶56

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, this writ petition is disposed of directing the

¶57

4 JS, ] W.P,No.26 781 of 2O2t

¶58

respondents to re-pay to the petitioner, an amount of R:;.6,43,278_ 00 which was recovered from her pensionary benefits;, withtn a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a ,:6py 61 16;, order, under proper acknowledgment. No costs.

¶59

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall starrd closed

¶60

SD/- MOHD. SANAUT.LAH^ANSARI ASSISTAN'I' REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I ( )I> SECTION OFFICER

¶61

¶62

1 The Principal^{Secretary, School Education Department'Secreterriat' State of} Telangana at^HYderabad.

¶63

z. fne A-clorntanf^{General (ASE), Telangala, Hyderabad'}

¶64

The District^{Education Oflicer, Na lgonda} -ljrstnct -.. i. iii" n.j^{nrister, ST tr4arysGirtsHighSchool (T Iv,.), Miryalaetuda,} Naloonda District.

¶65

s. r,i;"ccJ t"^{6p-iol.Education, High court for the stateof Telanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶66

6 o;;-bdi; dri.sriniuut,^{Rao Madiraju, Advocqtg [oPUC]}

¶67

&; CC to^{Sri.K.Balakrishna, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶68

Two CD^CoPies

¶69

SAGJP^s}4"-

i I I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210812023

3t'
'Ls
I
t\ s\l
i,,

ORDER

WP.No.26181 of 2021

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Ch. Venkata Sukumari v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Venkata Sukumari v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aleti Susheela Vs M/s Singareni Company colliries Ltd.

A. Ashok and 179 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Shanigararn Shyam Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Ksheerasagar Ramesh Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Jakkula Manohar Vs The State of Telangana

Lakki Sarojini, Vs The State of Telangana