THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.8946 OF 2025

O R D E R :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in retiring the Petitioner with retrospective effect 31.12.2018 vide MEMO No.DE/OP/ICNR/ADM/JAO/SA/JA/D. No.819/20 dated 21.09.2020 without notice and without providing Petitioner with an opportunity and subsequent action of Respondents No.4 and 5 in recovering Rs.36,13,929/- out of the retirement benefits payable to Petitioner vide MEMO No.SE/OP/KNR/SAO/AO(E)/AAO /JAO(PEN.)/SA/D.No.275/20 and MEMO No.DEE/OP/KNR/ADM/ JAO/SA/D.No.1390/20 both dated 21.12.2020 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 5 herein to refund the amount Rs.36,13,929/- with 24% interest and pay all retirement and pensionary benefits on the basis of services rendered by Petitioner till 21.09.2020, and pass…”

2. Heard Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Energy for respondent No.1; and Sri A.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper-cum-Sanitary Orderly vide Memo dated 25.10.1984 on compassionate grounds, on account of the death of her husband. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Blue Printer (Class-IV Employee) vide proceedings dated 04.12.1987 and continued in the said post till 21.09.2020, i.e., the date on which she was relieved from service.

(b) It is further submitted that respondent No.4, vide proceedings dated 21.09.2020, relieved the petitioner from service retrospectively by fixing her date of retirement as 31.12.2018. In fact, respondent No.4 had earlier issued a Memo dated 07.01.2020 showing the petitioner’s date of retirement as 31.12.2020 by issuing one-year notice. However, on account of the petitioner’s retrospective retirement, she was informed that recovery of salary paid beyond 31.12.2018 would be effected from her pension and terminal benefits. As such, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 02.11.2020 requesting release of her pension and terminal benefits without any such recovery.

(c) It is also submitted that respondent No.5 issued a letter dated 21.12.2020 stating that an amount of Rs.36,13,929/- was to be recovered from the petitioner’s terminal benefits towards excess salary paid from January 2019 to August 2020. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 issued proceedings dated 21.12.2020 ordering recovery of the said amount.

(d) Learned counsel contends that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault of her own, and that the alleged overpayment occurred solely due to the lapses and administrative lapses of the respondents. Hence, the action of the respondents in retrospectively fixing the petitioner’s date of retirement and ordering recovery is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, having actually worked as Blue Printer till 21.09.2020, is entitled to salary up to that date. Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to refund the amount of Rs.36,13,929/- with interest @ 24% per annum, and to release all the retirement and pensionary benefits duly reckoning the service rendered by the petitioner till 21.09.2020. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Jagdish Prasad Singh v.

State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 455

4. Learne