M. JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

(2.) This Court has heard Smt. K.N. Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Kumar Kalava, counsel appearing for the 4 respondent, who is the main answering respondent.

(3.) The brief case of the petitioner is that she was allowed to work as a Class-IV employee with the 4 respondent till 30/4/2018. The order by which she was directed to retire as on 30/4/2013 is in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an illiterate lady and Class-IV employee. According to her, the impugned order dtd. 2/7/2018 was issued stating that as per her date of birth, she had to retire on 30/4/2013, but she continued to work for a further period of five years. Therefore, the order was passed on 2/7/2018 after her retirement to recover the excess salary paid to her. Learned counsel assails this order and states that the petitioner did not make any misrepresentation or fraud and that she was allowed to continue in service. Respondents also did not looked into her recorded date of birth and therefore, she was allowed to continue in service. Relying upon State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, learned counsel argues that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had given five situations in which the recovery cannot be made, even if payment is made in excess of the entitlement of the employee. Therefore, she prays for an order.