WP/27899/2024 of S SUDHAKAR Vs THE STATE OF AP on 5 February 2026

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 4th respondent in directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,89,466/, Rs.10,68,152/- and Rs.84,450/- item 5, 6 and 7 are without power, jurisdiction and authority and contrary to Rule 9(2)(b) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and consequentially declare that the respondents cannot recover any amounts in respect of the said amounts with a consequential direction to the respondents to fix and pay the full pension with all retiremental benefits with interest @14% per annum…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is a Forest Beat Officer who retired on 31.03.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, his provisional pension was fixed, but the remaining retiremental benefits were not released.

4. After his retirement, the petitioner was served with proceedings dated 23.03.2020, under which a recovery of an amount of Rs.2,33,000/- was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the PCCF and the matter is pending. Similarly, he was issued a notice on 21.07.2018 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,09,856/-. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, another order dated 14.11.2019 was passed for recovery of an amount of Rs.30,317/- and the said amount was remitted by the petitioner. Further, three more proceedings were issued demanding amounts of Rs.1,89,466/-, Rs.10,68,152/- and Rs.84,450/-. All these amounts pertain to the year 2012-2013, which is beyond the four years period prior to the date of retirement.

5. After his retirement, the respondents have not considered and not released the leave encashment, full pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. When the petitioner made a request for release of the pensionary benefits, the respondents issued proceedings dated 12.07.2024 directing him to remit an amount of Rs.17,19,268/- in respect of seven incidents. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the record and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Before issuing the impugned orders, the respondents neither conducted any enquiry nor given any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his case. Further, the learned counsel submitted that with regard to Sl.No.1 i.e., DFO, WLD, Proddatur, pertaining to 23.03.2020 for an amount of Rs.2,37,027/-, and Sl.No.2, pertaining to 21.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.1,09,856/-, though these two are within the time limit prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules’), Sl.No.3, pertaining to 14.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.30,317/-, has already been remitted. As far as Sl.Nos.5, 6 and 7 are concerned, the amounts of Rs.1,89,466/-, Rs.10,68,152/- and Rs.84,450/- pertain to the year 2012-2013, which are beyond the time limit prescribed under Rule 9(2) of the Rules. At any rate, the above recoveries ordered by the authorities were unilateral, without conducting any enquiry and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Apart from that, the said orders were never communicated to the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White

Washer)1, wherein an identical issue was considered and the law was laid down with the following guidelines: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

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

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

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

(v) 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 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334

extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

7. In the judgment referred to above, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that recoveries from employees are impermissible where the recovery is sought from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. In the instant case, the petitioner retired in March, 2020, whereas the impugned orders were passed in the year 2024. Therefore, the impugned orders are contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Apart from that, the learned counsel has made reliance on Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, which clearly provides that the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his retirement shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.

8. In the instant case, surprisingly, no departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner and no orders have been passed apart from issuing the recovery orders. Hence, in the above said circumstances, the respondents ought not to have passed orders directing the remittance of an amount of Rs.17,19,268/- instead of releasing all pensionary benefits, including earned leave encashment.

9. In reply to the said contentions, learned Assistant Government made submissions based on the averments made in the counter, wherein the Accountant General, Audit party, Andhra Pradesh, raised objections regarding the expenditure incurred by the staff in respect of plantation where the survival percentage was less than 50%. According to the audit report and objections, the said amount has to be recovered from the concerned officers. As per the audit objections, recovery has been initiated against the petitioner and as per his entitlement, the retiremental benefits were already released to the petitioner, except encashment of earned leave, which has been withheld due to the pendency of the recovery orders.

10. Considering the submissions made by both counsel and on perusal of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the impugned orders, it is evident that in the entire orders, there is no reference with regard to the recovery orders passed or communicated to the petitioner, except a reference to the representation made by the petitioner. That itself shows that the respondents have neither initiated any departmental proceedings against the petitioner nor communicated any recovery orders to him.

11. In the said circumstances, in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, more particularly in paragraph No.18(ii) thereof, the impugned orders dated 12.07.2024 passed by the 4th respondent are set aside, declaring that the said orders are contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also to Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules. Consequently, the respondents are directed to release all pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 06.02.2026 Ivd

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.27899 of 2024

Dated: 06.02.2026

Ivd