Dismissed

The Union of India v. Ch. S.R.K. Sarma.

Telangana HC17 Oct 2023WP/29749/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Tribunal had refused to direct the recovery of erroneously paid excess basic pay/band for over five years, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab V. Rajiq Masih. The Court held the Tribunal was justified and the petition was

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No. 29749 of 2015 dismissed with costs prohibited.

The Union of India Vs Ch. S.R.K. Sarma. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

t I I : .'

t^3318I

I I

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

¶8

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 297219 OF 2015

¶13

Between:

¶14

The Union of lndia, Rep. by the Secretary to Govemment of lndia Department of Defence Research, DRDO Hqrs., DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New^Delhi 11001'1 .

¶15

The Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation DRDO Hqrs. B Block, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi¹¹⁰ 011.

¶16

The Director, Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶17

The Director, Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL), Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad^- 500 005.

¶18

The Director, Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad^- 500 058.

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

1 Ch. S.R.K. Sarma, S/o Ch. Radha Krisha Murthy, Aged 56^years, Occ Tech. Officer-C. Defence lt/etallurgical Research Laboratory^(DMRL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶22

K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o K.M. Prasada Rao, Aged 50^years, Occ Tech. OfficerC. Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory^(DMRL), Kanchanbagh^P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶23

M. Ramulu, S/o M. Satyanarayana,^{Aged54 years, Occ Tech.Officer-B.} Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory^{(DMRL),KanchanbaghP.O.,} Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶24

E. Pratap Kumar, S/o, E. Nana Rao, Aged 54^years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory^(DMRL), Kanchanbagh^P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶25

K. Prasad, S/o K. Venkataiah, Aged 54^years, Occ Tech. Officer-B.^Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory^(DMRL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad^- 500 058.

¶26

6 N. Venkatesham, S/o late Vittal, Aged 55 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Melallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶27

7 S. Ramkishan, S/o late S. Sammaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Pefence^{Melq]l-urgicalResearch Laboratory (D[,RL), Kanchanbaghp.O.,} Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶28

8 K. Ramaswamy Choudary, S/o Venkata Rathaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶29

I Ch. Naga Raju, Sio Ch. Yoseph, Aged 55 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Qefgnce^{MetallurgicalResearch Laboratory(DMRL),KanchanbaghP.O.,} Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶30

'10.Y. Narender, S/o Y. Venkata Swamy, Aged 44 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. pefgncg Melall,urgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchanbagh p.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶31

B.B. Sivakoti, S/o B.V. Appa Rao Sarma, Aged 51 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. pefgnce Melallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchanbagh p.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶32

12.T.V. Ramesh Babu, S/o T. Somisetty, Aged 50 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. pefgncg Melallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchanbagh p.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶33

'13.G.1. Prem Sagar, S/o late D.l. lsaac Aged 58 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL), Chandrayan Gufta, Hyderabad - 500 005.

¶34

'14. P.- Venugopala Rao, S/o late P- Venkata Ratnam, Aged 56 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL), Chandrayan Gutta, Hyderabad - 500 005.

¶35

'15.B. Madhusudan, S/o B. Adviah, Aged 58 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL), Chandrayan Gutta, Hyderabad - 500 005.

¶36

16.Challa Gopala Krishna, S/o late Ch. R.K. Prasad, Aged 54 years, Occ Tech. Officer-C. Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL), Chandrayan Gufta, Hyderabad - 500 005.

¶37

V. Sreedhara Rao, Sio late V- Srinivasa Rao, Aged 59 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL), Chandrayan Gutta, Hyderabad - 500 005.

¶38

B. Veeraiah, S/o late B. Chandraiah, Aged 54 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL), Chandrayan Gutta, Hyderabad - 500 005.

¶39

'19. P. Raju, S/o P. Eshwar, Aged 52 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶40

20.B. Sudarsan, S/o B. Devadass, Aged 49 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶41

¶42

21.ry.Vj Ramesh, S/o late N. Ventakaramaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ Tech. OfficerB. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶43

22.G. Bhaskar Reddy, Sio G. Subba Reddy. Aged 51 years, Occ Tech. Officer-B. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶44

O.L.N. lndusekhar, S/o Lakshminarayana, Aged 54 years, Occ Tech. OfficerC. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶45

24.L.S. Narayana Charyulu, S/o late L. Raghavacharyulu, Aged 55 years, Occ Tech. Officer-A. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶46

25.R. Rukmoji, S/o R. Mangla, Aged 45 years, Occ Tech. Officer-C. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), Kanchanbagh P.O., Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶47

26.The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad rep. by its Registrar, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

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 an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records relating to order daled 27-O1-2015 in O.A. No.1412 of 2014 and set aside the same as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, unjust.

¶50

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 38544 OF 201s)

¶51

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 suspend the operation of orders dated 27-01-2015 in O.A.No.1412 ot 2014, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶52

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶53

Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 to 25: SRI SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶54

Counsel for the Respondents No.26 :

¶55

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶56

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶57

AND

¶58

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMA,VARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶59

Writ Petltion No.29749 of 2O15

¶60

ORDER : (Pe/ the Hoft'ble Si Justrce Abhmond Kumar Shauilil

¶61

This Writ Petition is hled by the petitioners under Article-226 of the Constitution of India seeking a 'Writ of Certiorari'by calling for records relating to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the TribunalJ, Hyderabad in O.A.No. l4l2 of 2Ol4 , dated 27 .Ol .2015 and to quash the same.

¶62

Heard the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for petitioners and Mr. Surcsh Kumar Potturi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶63

Learned Deputy Solicitor General ol India appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondents were working as Technical Ofhcers 'C' with DRML and the petitioners have erroneotrsly paid a pay band of Rs.4,8OO/- instead ol Rs.4,600 l- vide proceedings, dated 05.06.2009 u,ith eflect from

¶64

2 AKs,J & RRN,J ,$p-297 49 _2O15

¶65

01.O1.2006, however, the petitioners have noticed that the respondents were erroneously paid a pay band of Rs.4,8O0/- instead of Rs.4,60O/-. The petitioners have issued proceedings on 30.05.2013 withdrawing the pay band of Rs.4,8OOl- and paid Rs.4,6OO/- pay band and also passed orders to recover the excess amount paid to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the petitioners, dated 30.05.2013, the respondents have approached the Tribunal by liling O.A.No. l4I2 of 2Ol4 and the Tribunal vide orders, dated 27.O1.2O15 was pleased to allow the O.A by directing the petitioners not to recover excess amount paid to the respondents by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of punJab and. others Vs. RaJiq Masih (White Washer)r. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no application to the present case. The Honble Supreme Court has Iaid certain guidelines in the above said judgment, wherein, when the excess payment has

¶66

rC.A.No.ll527of 20l4(arisingourrrt'St.p(()N(r.lt6S.lof 20lt.datcd ll{ [.2014)

¶67

¶68

AKS,J & RRN,J wp 29749-20t5

¶69

been made for a period in excess of hve (5) years, then the said amount cannot be recovered. Admittedly, the petitioners have paid a pay band of Rs.4,gOO/_ vide proceedings, dated OS.06.2009, though with effect from 01.OI.2006, but on noticing the discrepancy, the petitioners have issued the proceedings within a period of less than hve (5) years i.e., on 30.0S.2013 and made elforts to recover the amounts from the respondents, but the Tribunal has applied the principle laid down in Ra/iq Mosih's ccse (referred supra) and allowed the O.A in favour of the respondents, as admittr:dl-1., the recovery proceedings were issued within a period of less than hve (5) years. Hence, the Tribunal was not justilied in allowing the O.A in favour o[ the respondents. t earned counsel for the petitioner. further contended that the respondents are Group-A & B employees and are not members belonging to Group_C & D, so as to take shelter as per the judgmcnt of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, appropriate orders be passecl in the writ petition by setting aside the

¶70

¶71

AKs,J & RRN,J wp-29749_2Ot5

¶72

orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. l4l2 of 2014, dated 27.O1.2O15 and allow the writ petition.

¶73

On tJle other hand, learned counsel for respondents had contended that though the petitioners have extended the pay band of Rs.4,gOO/vide proceedings, dated 05.O6.2009, but they were paid the said benefit with effect from 01.01.2006 and the petitioners were tryrng to recover the excess amount from the respondents vide proceedings, dated 30.O5.2O13, which is more than 5 years. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A in favour of the respondents by following the Iaw laid by the Honble Supreme Court (referred supra). Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶74

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A in lavour of the respondents, as admittedly, the petitioners have paid the benefit of pay band with eflect from

¶75

AKS,J & RRN,J wp 29749 _2Ot5

¶76

¶77

O1.Ol.2006 and they were trying to recover the excess amount vide proceedings, dated 3O.O5.2013, which would mean that the excess amount paid for more than hve (5) years cannot be recovered as set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Raftq Masih's crzse (referred supra) since it equally applies. Hence, thc Tribunal was justihed in a-llowing the O.A in favour of the respondents. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶78

With these observations, the Writ petition IS

¶79

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶80

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

¶81

if any, shall stand closed.

¶82

//rRUE copy//^{ASSrsffr}.aGRESsEFilA} SECflION OFFICER

¶83

To, SECflION OFFICER 1. One CC to SRt cADt pt ? fl ':'i fi'6 l:6' .",es:,Hif,ft [ffi[x!"ii{ii:,,ii.F,'i}ff ""'^{r nd a,} cD Copies 3.1*o GJP

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711012023

ORDER

1 6E ST4r €
(
q
3 J 22 t,l0tj l.:: t)z
{
* t)65 p416v\l.!)

¶90

WP.No.29749 ot 2015

¶91

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶92

rb
(,Gt

The Union of India v. Ch. S.R.K. Sarma.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. Ch. S.R.K. Sarma.

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

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, Vs Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar

G.S.Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 others

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs G.S.Reddy

B. Ratna Vs Sangumuri Balakrishna

Smt.M.Suseela, Vs The State of Telangana

Union of India Vs S.Bhanu Priya