IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22698 of 2000 Between: G.Chandra Rao E.098695, S/o. Venkanna R/o. Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Depot Manager, Gajuwaka Depot, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Dy. Chief Personal Manager O/o. Executive Director, Vizianagaram Zone, Vizianagaram. 3 The Secretary, SRBS, O/o. Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in enhancing the recovery of HBA (House Building Advance) from Rs.491/- to Rs.1470/- and eﬀecting recovery from my salary without there being any prior notice to me and recovering my entire salary is illegal, and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 22698 of 2000 ORDER : The petitioner has worked as a Cleaner in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. While he was in service, he has availed the loan of Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a site. Accordingly, a memorandum, dated 14.07.1994 was entered into between the petitioner and the Corporation. On submission of relevant documents, at ﬁrst instance, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was released on 18.10.1994. Further amount of Rs.5,000/- was released on 07.02.1995. As per the agreed terms, the said loan amount has to be recovered by the respondent- employer at the rate of Rs.491/- per month in 120 monthly instalments. But however, on the ground that the petitioner did not submit any sale deed in proof of utilizing the total sanctioned amount of Rs.30,000/- but submitted a registered sale deed only for Rs.21,670/-, the respondents have enhanced the instalment amount from Rs.491/- to Rs.1470/-, and also ordered for collection of penal interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum. 2. By an interim order, dated 22.11.2000, respondents were directed to recover the loan amount at the rate of Rs.500/- per month pending further orders, and the said order continued all along during the pendency of the writ petition. Even if the amount is recovered at the rate of Rs.500/-, the respondents might have recovered the full loan amount. 3. But however, it is the case of the petitioner that at the time of his retirement, the respondents have withheld certain amounts on account of penal interest. It is submitted that as much as there is no inquiry, giving opportunity of hearing to him, there is no authority for the respondents either to enhance the monthly instalment amount or to recover any amount towards penal interest. Though it is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner was given a notice, but however, even as per the averments in the counter aﬃdavit, necessary inquiry was not conducted before passing of orders either for enhancing the instalment amount or to charge any penal interest on the loan amount obtained by the petitioner. It is merely stated that when respondent No.2 has addressed respondent No.3, he has ordered for enhancement of the instalment amount and to collect penal interest. 4. Any order either for increase of the instalment amount or to collect penal charges, certainly would aﬀect the rights of the petitioner. It is alleged that out of Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner has submitted the registered sale deed showing an amount of Rs.21,670/-, but even as per the averments in the counter aﬃdavit, there is no order passed by summarily inquiring into the allegations levelled against the petitioner to charge any penal interest. 5. As much as the principal amount is already recovered in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, I dispose of the writ petition, directing that if any amounts are recovered on account of penal interest, while settling the service beneﬁts of the petitioner on attaining the age of super-annuation, the same shall be refunded to him within two months from today. It is made clear that the respondents are entitled to recover amounts from the petitioner only as per the initial agreement entered into, while sanctioning the loan of Rs.30,000/-. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th November 2008 ajr