Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 521
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Pulla Karthik, J.
Dr.P.Madhusudhan Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.12715 and 13687 of 2024
Decided On : 06-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M Srikanth
For the Respondent: GP For Services I
IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of excess payments after five years without notice is impermissible under Article 14, violating natural justice principles.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Recovery of excess payment – The petitioners challenged the recovery orders issued after 16 years without notice, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Rafiq Masih that recovery is impermissible after five years. The court found the recovery proceedings arbitrary and violative of natural justice. (Paras 3, 10, 12)
(B) Natural Justice – Principles of natural justice were violated as the recovery orders were issued without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case: The petitioners, appointed as Physical Directors, faced recovery of excess payments made since 2006, based on a revised pay fixation order issued in 2024 without notice. (Paras 3, 10)
Findings of Court: The court ruled that the recovery orders were unsustainable and directed the respondents to refund any amounts already recovered. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issue was whether the recovery of excess payment was lawful given the delay and lack of notice. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that recovery after a significant delay without notice violates principles of natural justice and is impermissible under the law established in Rafiq Masih. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside.
ORDER :
Pulla Karthik, J.
Since the lis raised in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.12715 of 2024, Sri A.Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.13687 of 2024, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent No.1, Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for National Institute of Technology, and Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for Union of India.
W.P. No.12715 of 2024
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein was appointed as Physical Director on 24.03.1992 in the respondent-NIT. Thereafter, he was promoted as Physical Director (Selection Grade) in the scale of 12000-4520-18300 w.e.f.29.02.2004 vide order dated 03.08.2004. Further, he was redesignated as Associate Professor of Physical Education w.e.f.01.01.2006 vide order dated 25.01.2016. He was also sanctioned fixation of pay and grade increments on 22.02.2018 in the VII Central Pay Commission. Further, Academic Grade Pay was mapped from Rs.9000/- to Rs.9500/- in the post of Associate Professor on 27.03.2018. While so, the second respondent has issued revised pay fixation order dated 10.08.2022 wherein the pay of the petitioner was revised based on the audit inspection report for the year 2022-2023 wherein some observations were made about irregular pay fixation on account of promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor made on 01.07.2006. Learned counsel has contended that the recovery of excess amount was directed after a lapse of 16 years that too without issuing any notice. Therefore, the petitioner made representations to respondent No.2 on 16.08.2022, 22.08.2022, 23.08.2022, 29.08.2022 stating that the observations made in the Audit Inspection report are not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the said objection is applicable only when an employee could not get promotion within six months from 01.01.2006 whereas the petitioner was promoted on 01.04.2006 itself. Further, the petitioner also made a representation dated 15.10.2022 to the Director General of Audit to re-examine the case of the petitioner and accordingly the case of the petitioner was reexamined and further action was dropped and the same was informed to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 21.11.2023. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 has issued impugned Order No.247/2024 dated 25.04.2024 for recovery of amount from the petitioner and the same is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)(2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the it was held that recovery from employees when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued, is impermissible in law. Further, the impugned order also discloses non-application of mind by respondent No.2. Despite the Audit Office dropped the recovery proceedings, respondent No.2 has proceeded with recovery that too without issuing any prior notice or without following due process of law.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-NIT has contended that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director vide order dated 24.03.1992 and joined on 09.04.1992. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.08.2004, he was promoted as Physical Director (Selection Grade) under Career Advancement Scheme w.e.f.29.02.2004. Thereafter, vide order bearing No.AD-1/ID.No.564/2016/4102, dated 25.01.2016, he was re-designated as Associate Professor of Physical Education w.e.f.01.01.2006, pursuant to the clarification issued by the MHRD in its letter bearing F.No.20-9/2015/TS.III, dated 26.11.2015. Even though in the said clarification it was specifically stated that “those Physical Education Personnel who are already continuing as faculty may be a
