Telangana High Court
WP/9413/2009 of MD. ZAHEERUDDIN, Vs APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, on 31 December 2014
CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.9413 OF 2009 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioner from the existing basic pay of Rs.13,300/- to Rs.13,250/- with effect from 01.11.2008 instead of enhancing the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.9413 OF 2009
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action ofthe respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioner from the existingbasic pay of Rs.13,300/- to Rs.13,250/- with effect from 01.11.2008instead of enhancing the pay on his promotion, and declare therecovery proceedings dated 21.01.2009 as arbitrary, illegal andviolation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India andconsequently to direct the respondents to pay at Rs.13,730/- as fixedby the 3[rd] respondent along with all consequential benefits.
The brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner wasappointed as a Driver in the first respondent Corporation on28.03.1976, and subsequently, on 04.10.2005, he was promoted as aDepot Clerk. Thereafter, on 01.11.2008, he was promoted as a DepotSuperintendent and eventually he retired from service on 31.03.2010. While in service, the petitioner was served with the recoveryproceedings dated 21.01.2001 which reads as under:
“You were promoted as Dy. Supdt(T) and assumed higherresponsibilities at Medak Depot on retention with effect from 01.11.2008. You have submitted option electing the date01.11.2008 for fixation in the promotion post.
Accordingly the GEN-23 was prepared for fixation of your payinduplicate duly fixing of pay to Rs.13,730/- w.e.f 01.11.2008 and also revised the pay from 1.4.2005 for which recovery ofexcess pay paid during the period from 1.4.2005 to till dateshould be recovered while audited.
This is for information.”
Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed thepresent writ petition.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that he had no role to play about any wrong fixation of the pay and it is solely the authoritieswho had knowledge and control to fix the pay and as such therecovery of excess amount which is sought to be made is arbitrary andillegal and violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also hisgrievance that no notices were issued and no explanation whatsoeverwas called for before issuance of the impugned proceedings.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, it is stated that petitioner’s pay while fixing the revisedpay scales of 2005 with effect from 01.04.2005, basic pay as on01.07.2004 i.e., Rs.9,145/-, was taken and fixed at Rs.12,275/-erroneously instead of Rs.11,865/- in the time scale of Rs.5,630-155-7,180-170-9560-190-10,890-195-11,865-205-13,095. This occurredonly on account of the software problem and the same was detectedlater in the process of audit in the year 2009. As the excess amountshave been paid by the Corporation by mistake of fact, the same issought to be recovered by issuing the impugned proceedings to thepetitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had accepted thereduction in pay scale with effect from 01.11.2008. A sum ofRs.21,201/- is the excess amount which is required to be collected andthere is no illegality in trying to recover the said amount.
The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on thejudgments reported in Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State ofBihar and others[[1]] and Yogeshwar Prasad and others v. NationalInstitute of Education Planning and Administration and others[[2]].The purport of the judgments is to the effect that in a case of excesspayment made, if there is no involvement of the employee by playingfraud or misrepresentation, the same need not be ordered to berecovered. The Supreme Court had injected the recoveries ofamounts which have already been paid.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the judgment reported in Chandi PrasadUniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others[[3]]wherebythe Apex Court had considered the two judgments referred by thelearned counsel for the petitioner. In accordance with the judgmentreported in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (3 supra), the earlier judgmentsneed not be treated as a precedent as the same having been passedby the Supreme Court in the facts of those cases.
In the present case, the order of recovery was passed on21.01.2009 and the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2010 i.e.,within a period of about 13 months from the date of passing of theorder of recovery. Though in the judgment referred to State of Punjaband others etc., vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (SLP(C)No.11684 of 2012) in para 12 (ii) as a guidance it is indicated as oneyear period, the ratio of the judgment can be applied to the facts of thepresent case, as the period in the present case is only in excess ofabout 1 ½ months than the prescribed period of one year. In the factsof the present case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside theproceedings dated 21.01.2009 issued by the respondents. There shallbe no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in thiswrit petition shall stand dismissed.
Date:31.12.2014.Gk.
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No.9413 OF 2009
Gk
Date:31.12.2014.
[1](2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 475
[2](2010) 14 Supreme court Cases 323