IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4472 of 2007 Between: 1 D. Janardhana Reddy, S/o. Chinna Penchala Reddy, Electricity Revenue Office, Atmakur, Nellore Dist. 2 V. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Narasa Reddy, O/O. Sub-Division/APSPDCL, Atmakur; Nellore Dist. 3 T. Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkata Narayana, O/O. Electricity Revenue Office, Atmakur; Nellore Dist. 4 G. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Chalapathi, O/O. Electricity Revenue Office, Atmakur; Nellore Dist. 5 G. Krishnaiah, S/o. Chenchaiah, O/o. ERO, Kovur; Nellore Dist. 6 S.PRASAD RAO, S/o.Venkaiah, O/o. ERO, Kovur; Nellore Dist. 7 Md. Humayun, S/o. Rasool, O/o. Sub-ERO; Butchireddypalem, Nellore District. 8 G.Gurrappa, S/o. Venkata Subbanna, O/o. Sub-ERO; Butchireddypalem, Nellore District. 9 K. Sarada, W/o. Pratap Reddy, O/o. Sub-ERO; Rural, Nellore, Nellore District. 10 G.Krishna Reddy, S/o.Laxmi Reddy, O/o. Sub-ERO; Podalakur, Nellore District. 11 Y.Balaramaiah, S/o. Subbaiah, O/o.SE, Nellore Dist. 12 V. Mohan Rao, S/o. Veerapa Naidy, O/O. DEE, MRT; Nellore 13 N. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkataiah, O/o. ERO; Nellore Town, Nellore Dist. 14 K.Narayana Rao, S/o. Jaggaiah, O/o. Sub-ERO; Podalakur, Nellore District. (W.P. is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1 to 8 and 10 to 14 as withdrawn as per Court order, dated 01.05.2007) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chairman and Managing Directior, A.P. Transco, Vidyuth Soudha,Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chairman & Managing Director; APSPDCL, Tirupathi. 3 The Superintendenting Engineer,(Operation), Southern Power Distribution Co.Ltd, Operation Circle, Nellore. 4 The Asst. Accounts Officer, O/O. ERO, Rural; Nellore, Nellore Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of respondents in directing the petitioners to remit back the excess pay fixation arrears of Rs.1,55,756.00 within a period of one month already paid to them for the period from 12/90 to 12/06 as arbitrary, unreasonable and set-aside the impugned orders of 2nd respondent in proceedings No.88(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.97; dated 24-7-2006 as well as Memo.No.AAO/ERO/R/NLR/PRS/D.No.321/07; dated 21-2-2007 issued by the 4th Respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to recover the alleged excess pay fixation arrears of Rs.1,55,746.00 and pass such other and further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:BOYARAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.P.BALARAMA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, by name K.Sarada, was initially employed in the Rural Electricity Cooperative Society Limited, Atmakur, Nellore District. Over a period of time, the said society was liquidated and its assets and liabilities were merged with the A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, the second respondent herein, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 15.10.2001. In the year 2006, it was noticed that the petitioner was extended certain scales of pay, beyond her entitlement during the year 1990. On that basis, the fourth respondent issued memo, dated 21.02.2007, directing the recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner. The proceedings are challenged in this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Certain reasons are, no doubt, stated in the impugned memo, dated 21.02.2007, as constituting the basis for effecting recovery from the petitioner. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner was not put on notice, nor she was given an opportunity to explain as to why recovery shall not be effected against her. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned memo is set aside. It is, however, left open to respondents, to pass fresh orders, after issuing notice to the petitioner, stating the reasons for the proposed action. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.18.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ