IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25770 of 1999 Between: Sri. A. Jagannadha Achary S/o. Sri. A. Ramachari R/o.D.No.12-2-112, Nimmakayala Street, Tirupati 517 501. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri. Venkateswara University, Rep. by its Registrar, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 The Audit Officer, Local Funds, Sri. Venkateswara University, Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri O.MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Sri KASA JAGAN MOHAN REDDY (SC for Sri Venkateswara University) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order, dated 09.09.1999, passed by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner joined respondent No.1 - Sri Venkateswara University (for short ‘the University’) in the year 1967 as Library Assistant. At that time, he was possessing degree in Arts and Diploma in Librarianship. Later, the petitioner acquired postgraduate qualification in Political Science from the University in the year 1976. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Library Assistant in the said year. The pay scales were revised in the year 1974, with effect from 01.01.1974 by the State Government. Following the same, the University requested the State Government to convey its concurrence for adopting the revised pay scales to the Library Assistants. By letter, dated 05.11.1980, the State Government conveyed its concurrence. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation to implement the revised pay scales, which was referred by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for his opinion. On receipt of the opinion from respondent No.2 vide his letter No.222, dated 17.09.1994, the University issued proceedings, dated 24.01.1995, revising the petitioner’s pay scale applicable to Library Assistants Grade-I. The petitioner was accordingly paid the arrears and also the salary according to revised pay scale and he eventually retired on 30.09.1997. However, nearly two years after the petitioner’s retirement, the University issued the impugned proceedings, wherein the petitioner’s pay has been ‘regulated’ by reducing the pay scale to the level of Rs.430-800, as against Rs.500-1050. This order is questioned in this Writ Petition. The petitioner’s salary was revised according to 1974 and 1978 pay scales. It is admitted that Library Assistant Grade-I with postgraduate qualification together with degree in Library Science is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.530-1050 according to 1974 pay scale and Rs.800-1450 according to 1978 pay scale. Admittedly, the petitioner held the Diploma in Library Science, apart from postgraduate qualification. Thus, technically speaking, the petitioner was not eligible to the revised pay scale, as he did not have degree in Library Science and he had only Diploma. In the affidavit, the petitioner specifically averred that as there were not many degree holders in Library Science, Diplomas themselves were being treated as equivalent degree and that was the precise reason why respondent No.2 in his opinion given on 17.09.1994, stated that the petitioner is eligible to draw the revised pay scale. A perusal of the said opinion, however, does not show that any such reason is given. It is not the case of the University that the petitioner has played any fraud or colluded with any Officer in getting his pay re-fixed. The fact remains that the University has applied its mind to the eligibility of the petitioner and allowed the revised pay scale, after obtaining opinion from respondent No.2. While in strict sense the petitioner was not eligible for the revised pay scale, the University has nevertheless revised the petitioner’s pay scale and allowed him to draw the same till his retirement. The petitioner apart from assailing the impugned order on merits raised a plea that the same was not preceded by a notice and an opportunity of hearing. Ordinarily, the action of the University ought to have been nullified on this ground and the matter remitted to it for fresh consideration. But, the fact that the petitioner retired as far back as the year 1997 and the case is pending for nearly ten years, dissuaded this Court from adopting this course. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that while the petitioner is not entitled to the revised pay scale, I see no justification whatsoever for the respondents to recover the revised pay scale already paid to him till his retirement. Equally, the petitioner, who is a ministerial employee, obviously, with limited means would financially suffer at the evening of his life, if the excess pension paid in accordance with the revised pay scale is recovered. In my considered view, the interests of justice will be balanced between the parties by disposing of the Writ Petition in the following terms: 1) the University is entitled to refix the petitioner’s pay scale as was done in the impugned order without affecting any recoveries, either from the salaries already paid to the petitioner or from the pension received by him; and 2) the University is permitted to refix the pension on the basis of the reduced pay scale, which shall come into effect prospectively without affecting the payments already made to the petitioner. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:15.12.2008 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ