IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21396 of 2008 Between: 1. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts , Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Abids,Hyderabad 2. The Deputy Director, Treasuries and Accounts, Department, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district ..... PETITIONERS AND T.Saidulu, R/o.H.No.28-866, Vidhyanagar, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon`ble A.P Admn.Tribunal,Hyderabad passed in OA.No.7233/2007 dated 27.11.2007 as being erroneous illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21396 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 27.11.2007, in O.A.No.7233 of 2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal”). 2. The aforesaid O.A. was filed by the respondent herein seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to refund the amount of Rs.20,537/- recovered vide proceedings, dated 20.09.2001, of the District Treasury Officer, Nalgonda, to him, by declaring such recovery as illegal and arbitrary, and also to direct the petitioners herein to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount recovered from the date of recovery till the date of payment. When the said O.A. came up for hearing before the Tribunal, both the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Government Pleader for respondents therein represented that the issue involved in the said O.A. is squarely covered by the orders, dated 18.11.2004, passed in O.A.No.6853 of 2002, and that the benefit extended to the applicant in the said O.A.No.6853 of 2002 may be extended to the respondent herein, on such representation, the present O.A. was disposed of in terms of the order, dated 18.11.2004, rendered in O.A.No.6853 of 2002, whereunder the respondents therein were directed to refund the excess amounts recovered along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment, and also to pay the interest on the delayed payment of pension at the rate admissible as per rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed by the respondents in the present O.A. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners. 4. It appears, after retirement of the applicant in O.A.No.6853 of 2002, by name Mr. M. Janardhan, who is junior to the respondent herein, the authorities sought to cancel the special promotion post scale given to him on the ground that he has not passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers. Consequently, his pay has been revised and re-fixed, and the excess amount of pay and allowances paid upto his retirement were sought to be recovered from his Gratuity. Thereafter, the pay of the respondent herein, whose pay has been stepped-up previously on par with the said Janardhan, was also stepped down and recovery was sought to be made. 5. Since the recovery of pay of the respondent herein was as a consequence of the recovery of pay of the said M.Janardhan, which was held to be illegal in O.A.No.6853 of 2002, and since both the counsel have represented before the Tribunal that the issue in the present O.A. is squarely covered by the orders passed in the said O.A.No.6853 of 2002, the same benefit was extended to the respondent herein under the impugned order. We are of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 29.09.2008 v v