IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5013 of 2000 Between: V.V. ​Vasantha Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, R/o.59A-8/12-4-/4, Plot No.122, Vasavinagar, Vijaywada. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500 020. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Regional Manager, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada. 3 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Depot Manager, Vijayawada Depot, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENTS 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 an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in recovering an amount of Rs. 17,508.25ps from the petitioner @ Rs.500/- w.e.f. February 2000 vide proceedings No.03/56(1)/97-VJA dated 31-1-2000 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. VIDYASAGAR Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in recovering an amount of Rs.17,508.25 ps. from him vide proceedings dated 31-01-2008 as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the said proceedings. 2. While the petitioner was working as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, certain vacancies of Junior Assistants arose in the Corporation. He applied for the same and was appointed as Junior Assistant by way of direct recruitment. Thereafter, his pay was fixed accordingly. But, however, on the ground that his pay was wrongly fixed, an amount of Rs. 17,508.25 ps. was ordered to be recovered from him, basing on an audit objection, by impugned proceedings dated 31-01-2000. 3. Whereas it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for fixation of his pay on appointment as Junior Assistant on a different time scale of pay in view of Regulation 9(1)(a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Pay & Allowance) Regulations, 1964, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the said Regulations will not apply to the petitioner as much as his appointment as Junior Assistant is by way of direct recruitment and not by promotion. It is the case of the respondents that as the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant by way of direct recruitment, his pay has to be fixed as per Regulation 7-A (e) of APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964. 4. At the stage of admission, this court, as early as on 29-03- 2000, passed interim orders directing the respondents not to effect any recovery in terms of the impugned order and the said order continued all along. A perusal of the impugned proceedings does not indicate issuance of any prior notice or opportunity to the petitioner before ordering recovery from him, by re-fixing his pay. 5. As much as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case in support of his plea that the pay which was already fixed is correct, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings, reserving liberty to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner for the proposed recovery and to pass appropriate orders after giving him opportunity to file his explanation to the notice. 6. The writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. January 20, 2009 MRR