M.V.RAJESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made:

(2.) Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II representing the respondents and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined in the service of respondents as NMR on 1/12/1980 and his services were regularized as Helper Grade-I on 1/12/1981. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Telephone Operator on 23/5/1992 and further promoted as Work Inspector Grade-IV with effect from 17/7/2004. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/7/2018. While so, the respondent No.3 issued proceedings, dtd. 12/8/2016 alleging that there was erroneous pay fixation in the cadre of Helper to Work Inspector Grade-III with effect from 1/7/1986 and that if any excess payment is noticed due to erroneous pay fixation, the same would be recovered from the petitioner without any notice. The petitioner made a representation on 25/4/2017 to the respondents that his pay was not erroneously fixed and it was done according to the rules and regulations. However, the respondents calculated the amount which was allegedly excessively paid to the petitioner as Rs.6,91,928.00. The recovery started from 9/8/2017 to 31/7/2018 @ Rs.14,494.00. However, special grade increment was sanctioned to the petitioner in the month of April, 2018 and the respondents recovered a sum of Rs.2,17,110.00 from the arrears payable to the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs.3,01,103.00 was recovered from the leave encashment of the petitioner on his retirement. In fact, the respondent No.3 addressed a letter to respondent No.2 on 15/11/2018 categorically stating that there is no erroneous pay fixation arrears to be recovered from the petitioner. There are variations in the amount mentioned in the notices. Further, the petitioner never sought any pay fixation and it is the respondents who have fixed the pay of the petitioner on par with the other employees and as such, if any mistake is committed by the respondents in erroneously fixing the pay, the same is not attributable to the petitioner and the petitioner is no way responsible for the same. The respondents have committed serious error in recovering the amounts after the retirement of the petitioner from the service. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others,(2015) 4 SCC 334. learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recovery of amount paid in excess without fault of the recipient and the balancing of conflicting claims and hardship caused to the employee in case recovery is directed, is impermissible. Further, the petitioner belongs to Class III post and as such, no recovery can be made from him as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case (1 supra). Though the petitioner approached the respondents on several occasions requesting for refund of the amount and though the respondents assured him to look into the matter, no action was taken by the respondents. Further, though the petitioner got issued a legal notice on 10/11/2019 to the respondents calling upon them to refund an amount of Rs.6,91,928.00 the respondents, having received the notice, did not reply to the same. The petitioner was victimized for no fault on his part. The entire action of the respondents in recovering the amount after his retirement without issuing any charge sheet and without conducting any enquiry is illegal, invalid and against the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case (1 supra) and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for.