IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5596 of 2008 Between: N. Nageswara Rao S/o Late Seetharamaiah Mangavaram, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Engineer-in-Chief, I&CAD (Irrigation Wing), Errammanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada. 3 The Executive Engineer, Krishna Water Division, Tenali, Guntur District. 4 the Mandal Parishad Developement Officer, Mandal Parishad, Payakaraopet, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction; more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with the Judgment and order in O.A. No. 2259 of 2004 with V.M.A. 515 of 2004 dated 15-06-2007 and the consequential orders passed in Review M.A. No. 2586 of 2007 dated 05-11-2007 and quash or set a side by holding the same as erroneous and unsustainable an also call for the records relating to and connected with proceedings No. EC-3/2136M, dated09-10-2003 and letter No.E 3/340M, dated 19- 02-2004 of the 3rd respondent and quash or set a side by holding the same as arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable and unjust and consequently, direct the 4th respondent not to recover a sum of Rs.78,306/- from the pay of the WP in pursuance to the proceedings No. EC-3/2136M, dated 09-10-2003 and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.V.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 15.06.2007, made in O.A. No. 2259 of 2004 with VMA No. 515 of 2004 and the consequential order passed in Review MA No. 2586 of 2007 dated 5.11.2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and to further declare the proceedings No. EC- 3/2136 M dated 9.10.2003 and Letter No.E-3/340 M dated 19.2.2004 issued by the third respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and to direct the fourth respondent not to recover a sum of Rs.78,306/- from the pay of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner herein filed the above OA assailing proceedings No. EC-3/2136M dated 9.10.2003 and the Lr.No.E3/340M dated 19.2.2004 issued by the third respondent, whereby the fourth respondent was directed to recover a sum of Rs.78,306/- in equal monthly instalments from the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Work Assistant on daily wage basis in A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited on 1.9.1981 and while working on NMR basis, his services were transferred to Irrigation Department. Since the petitioner completed five years of service, in view of GO Ms. No. 143 dated 16.3.1984, he was converted into Work Charged establishment as Work Inspector Grade-III with effect from 1.9.1986. Subsequently, since the petitioner did not possess certificate from Industrial Training Institute, he was put on notice calling for his explanation as to why he should not be reverted from the post of Work Inspector Grade-III to Work Inspector Grade – IV. After receipt of his explanation, the petitioner was reverted to Work Inspector Grade-IV with effect from 28.2.1989. The petitioner submits that since his pay fixation in the cadre of Work Inspector Grade – III was no done at his instance and, therefore, he cannot be penalised for such pay fixation and consequently the order of recovery to the tune of Rs.78,306/- deserves to be set aside. The case of the respondents is that admittedly, the petitioner did not possess a certificate from the Industrial Training Institute and since the petitioner has enjoyed the benefit out of irregular promotion, he has no right to agitate for the recovery, irrespective of the fact whether the pay fixation was done at his instance or not. The Tribunal, by the order, impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the O.A. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed Review MA No. 2586 of 2007 pleading that since the petitioner herein had not misrepresented before the Authorities to appoint him as Work Inspector Grade-III nor he claimed any pay fixation to the said category, there is no justification in ordering recovery of amounts on the ground that the pay of the petitioner had been fixed erroneously. The Tribunal, by an elaborate order dated 5.11.2007 dismissed the Review MA. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, There is no dispute with regard to the appointment of the petitioner as Worm Assistant on daily wage basis in the A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited and his transfer to Irrigation Department. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner possesses SSC qualification and did not possess a certificate from the Industrial Training Institute, which is the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Work Inspector Grade – III, in Irrigation Department. Therefore, the reversion of the petitioner from Work Inspector Grade III to Work Inspector Grade – IV and consequent stepping down in the pay fixation, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner did not opt for such a fixation of his pay on the post of Work Inspector Grade-III. As a necessary corollary, it goes without saying that having drawn excess pay in the category of Work Inspector Grade –III, the petitioner is bound to refund the excess drawal on his reversion to Work Inspector Grade – IV. Having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal in the O.A. and the Review M.A., we do not see any illegality. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition and in view of the circumstances explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.78,306/- which is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner herein, shall be recovered in equal monthly instalments of Rs.1,000/- per month, first of such instalment shall be recovered from his pay payable on 1.5.2008. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 18, 2008 MAS.