Prof. K. S. Sudheer Reddy Vs Osmania University

Prof. K. S. Sudheer Reddy, S/o. Sri K. Sadasiva Reddy, aged 67 years, Occ. Professor (Retd.), University College (IASE) of Education, Department of Education, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Rl/o. H.no.'1-6-30/5, Ravindra Nagar, Habsiguda, l-Jyderabad-500 013.

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Osmania University, rep., by its Registrar, Hyderabad-500007. 2 The Deputy Director, State Audit, Govt of Telangana, Osmania University, Hyderabad-50000 Z.

¶13

3 State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF TMANDAIVUS declaring the Proceedings No.932/UADlGazl2015, dated -1^'1- 2051 04-12-2015, ordering recovery of excess payment made from^'l 1-06-1997 to 23-02-2OOO in Professor scale amounting to Rs.1 ,57,186t- issued by the 2nd Respondent is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative o'f Arl.14, 21 of the Constitution of India and also the Principles of Natural justice and by nullyfing the same, direct the Respondents to refund the amount deducted under the impugned proceedings No.932/UAD/G azJ2O1 5, dated -1'1 -205 I 04-12-2015 wilh interest.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

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 Proceedings No.932/UADlGazl2015, dated xx-1 1-2O1Sl 04-12-2015, ordering recovery of excess payment, issued by the 2nd respondent.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.B.VIJAYA KUMAR, rep., A.V.S.LAXMI counser ror rhe Respondents No.1&2 , i$ F[dt:tilT.rtltt,T^",

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHUIAR RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No. 194O1 of 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

¶24

"...to issue any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature oJ WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings No.932/UAD/Gaz/2}15, dated -11-2015/01.12.2015, ordering recotery ofexcess poyment made.fiont 11.06.1997 to 23.02.2006 in ProJbssor scale amounting to R.y.t,57.186/- issued by the 2,,d Rcspondent is arbitrtuy, illegal. discriminatory and violative of Art.ll, 2l of the Constitution of lndia awl also the Principles oJ' Natu'al justice and by nullifying the liame, direcl the Respondents lo refund the amount deducled under the impugned proceedings No.932/UADlGaz/2]15, datcd -l l-2015/01.12.2015 with interest and pass -.."

¶25

Heard Sri P.B. Vij aya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing A.V.S. La-rmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned Stalding Counsel for Osmaina University, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, atd. learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing lor respondent No.3.

¶26

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that \ the present writ petition)s, squarely covered by an order of this

¶27

2

¶28

I t !

¶29

Court dated^(15.06.2023 in W.P.No.131O9 of 2O23, ar-rd^prays this Court to pass a similar order in the^present u'rit^petition also.

¶30

4 . The said submission is not seriously disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for responden'l Nos. 1 and 2.

¶31

The relevant portion of the order dated 05.06.2O23 in

¶32

W.P.No. 13109i of 2003, is extracted hereunder:

¶33

"5. IIoueuer, after going through the mateiaL on record, tltis Court finds thot tLLe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rofiq Masih (cited supra) has held that the monetary gains uronglg extended to the beneficiary emplogees in excess of their entitlements tuithottt ang fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient cannot be recouered after the retirement of the emplogee. This Court also Jinds that the Hon'ble Supreme Couft in the case of TLnmos Doniel (cited supra) has reiterated thi.s position. Respectfully follotuing^{the same, this Coutt deems it} fit^{and proper} to direct the 7,t respondent to refund the reader incremen.t tuhich utas recouered, utith an interest of 60/o per annum from the date of recouery till the da.te of paAment."

¶34

..,,

¶35

3

¶36

Having regard to the submissions made by the ieamed

¶37

counsel appearing for the respective parties, and for the reasons alike in the order dated 05.06.2023 in W.p.No.i31O9 of 2023, th.e Writ Petition is disposed of directjng respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,57,186/ (Rupees One lakh, fifty seven thousand, one hundred and eighty six only) deducted under the impugned proceedings, dated -1 l-2OlS/04.12.2015 with interest of 6oh per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment. No order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA AS ISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER \t

\

To,