Allowed

Ch.Prasad Rao v. Osmania University

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023WP/4116/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Telangana set aside university proceedings attempting to recover excess pension. The Court held that recovery without notice and after a long lapse is illegal and arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Set aside proceedings No. 1712/9/989/Admin-1, dated 12.01.2018 & consequential proceedings. Respondents directed to pay pension without reference to fixation.

Ch.Prasad Rao Vs Osmania University — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I ! i I I I I I

¶2

[^32e9 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

TUESDAY 'THE^{ELEVENTHDAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶7

WRIT PET^{ITIONNO: 4115 OF 2018}

¶8

8"8ffi"""0 Rao, S/o^{Kantha Rao' aged about60- years' occ' Retired Professor'} 'science' Osmania University' Department^{ot Cnemrstry, i'lni'"oitiyCof r"gt} .of Hyderabad,^{R/o. Flat 'fi; - 3iid-eroct] VishnuResidencv'Gandhinagar'} Hyderabad-S00^080. ...'ET'T,ONER

¶9

...'ET'T,ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Osmania University,^{Hyderabad' rep'by its Re€istrar'} 2 The Deputy^{Director, st"t" n'O't"Stite of ielangana' OsmaniaUniversity'} Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The State of^{Telangana,rep by its PrincipalSecretary' HigherEducation} Department,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad} ...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

...RES'ONDENTS

¶14

Petition^{underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying.that'inthe} -.nore circumstances^{statedin tn. ,?ii-ruiiiir"itherewith, the Hiqh courtmay be pleased} particularly one^{in the natureof writof} to issue^{a writ, ordero.. ail""i[.} Mandamus,^{declaring tn""]iip'gn"dProcee.dings. No' 17120'll1989/Adm'1-1'} proceedingi.^{MR. No. 927 lUADlGazl2,lB'} dt.23.01.2018 dt. 12.01.2018^{of and its the 1st} "on""i*"ntlf^;;#;il direct it '1".,n1' tire^respondents 1ll}rary' discrimin'1"-y^,1:d^:v^{to pay pensionand} nullifying^{the same ano} "on-"-Jqr"nfly pensionary benefits^{to tn" pJiiil"Lir,iith interest without referenceto re-fixation.} @o"ooonerSection151cPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{fiteO in supportoi tn" plitiorr' il"-I{} Court mav^{be pleased be} oleased to^{directthe respondentsto settlethe pensionand pensionary benefitsto} itlE"JI,1i,1.i^{i;ir't.r, rlt""' to'|."-t""t'"nand withoutrecoverybv suspending} the operation^{of tn" i'p'gn"OProceedings} --No^{17t2O1l1989lAdm 1'} 1,dt.12.01.2018 "na^{it..on."[i,'"nii"fpro"."Orgl VRNIo.SZZIUADIGa212018,} disposal of^{the mainWritdt'} 23.01.2018,^{passed bv th;"l"tt} ';;;o"ni'-pJ"aing Petition.

¶15

blirr".r^{for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATREqPy-l-El'} SRI. D^{BALA KISHAN RAO}

¶16

Counsel^{for the Respono"nt Ho"ia2 : SRICH JAGANNATHARAo'} SC^FOR OSMANIA^UNIVERSITY Counsel^{for the Respondent No'3} '^{G flNva KUMARIAGPFOR SERVICES-I} ii"ttrJ.roe^{the following: ORDER}

¶17

I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICEE.V./ENUGOPAL

¶18

wzuT PETITIQ![ No.4116 of 2O1a

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

1 l]eard Sri Vernkat Recicly, lcarned counsel representing Sri D.Bala Kishar-r Rao, le.ar-necl counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Jagzrnnatha Rao. learned Standing Counsel for Osmania Univr-'rsity and Ms.Kanya Kum;eri, Iearned Assistant Govt-.rnment Pleader representing learnecl Government Plezrder for Services-I. Perused Lhe record.

¶21

2 The petitioner asserts that he joinecl the 1sr respondent Llniversity as Ler;turer in the Department of Chemistry w.ith effect from 09.06. 1989 ancl was promoted from tirne to tirne. The petitioner retired from service on attainrnent of superannuation on 31.O8.2O I 7. While Writ Appt:al l.lo.489 of 1999 and batch was pending against the orclers passed in WP No.2O58O of 1998 and barch, the petitioner gave option and accordingir., his pay was revised in terms of GONIs.No.2O8 dated 29.06.1999. Subsequently, the saici writ appeal was allowed by -judgment dated 23.O2.2OO5. In tlre rneanwhile b1.' a order in GORt.No.487, dated O'/.O1.2OO4 the Government cxtended the decision of the IJGC dated la.lD.2OO2 exuviating the pay of MpS Reader.s and CAS Readers with effecr from O I 0 I . 1996. On this acloption the

¶22

\1 \

¶23

¶24

Executive Council of the l"t respondent by order dated 04.O2.2OOS resolved to constitute a Sub-Cor:nmittee to look into the details of the eligibility of all teachers under both the schemes and perrnitted the teachers to again opt under the respective schernes available as per the eligibility criteria. When the petitioner opted to corne back to the original post of Senior Lecturer as per his eligibility, decided by the Sub-Committee by proceedings dated 04.O2.2OO5 his pay was again revised in terms of RPS 1996 with effect from O1.O1.1996 with two increments of Ph.D., on fulfillment of the CAS conditions.

¶25

3 The pay of the petitioner was revised under CAS with effect from 27.O7.t998 in the cadre of Senior Lecturer (Reader) and he became Professor in the year 2OO6 and retted frnally from service on 31.08.2017. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2O18 the l"t respondent withdrew two advance increment sanctioned for Ph.D, which were sanctioned long back and pay was fixed in terms of GOMs.No.4S7 dated 07.O8.2OO4 and a-lso as per GOMs.No.2O8, dated 29.06.1999. The respondents have unilaterally withdrawn earlier pay and ordered recovery in terms of audit objection to an extent of Rs.5,00,931/-.

¶26

4 The petitioner submits that he retired on 31.08.2017 but till

I I

date no notice has been ser-r,:cl on him to show cause as to whv the benefits shorrld not be r,r'ithdrawn and no order has been passed in that direction. The attempt to withdraw the benefits extended during pre-2O14 period after a lapse of 12^years that too aJter his retirement is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Hon'ble Court in WP No.7855 of 2019 and batcl.r dated 11.06.202 1.

¶31

5 No counter afhdavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents

¶32

6 The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University contended that excess amounts were erroneously paid to the petitioner, therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover the same from the petitioner.

¶33

7 In ttre identical set of circumstances, this Honble Court in WP No.7855 of 2Ol9 and batch by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of PunJab v. Rafiq Masihl held that the recovery is bad.

¶34

8 In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (referred supra), and in view of violation of principles of natural justice, this writ petition deserves to be allou,ed.

¶35

r (201s) 4 SCC 334

¶36

4 9 In the result, this rvrit^petition is allorved^{setting aside the} proceedings No.l7 l2Oll1989lAdm.1-1, dated 12.01.2018^and consequential^{proceedings of the l't respondent dated 23.01.20i8.} The respondents are directed to^{pay pension and pensionary} benehts to llre petitioner without^{reference to the fxation. There} shall be no order as to the costs.

¶37