THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NOS. 23451, 25176, 21768, AND 2360 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 23451 OF 2008 Between: Court Masters and Personal Secretaries’ to the Hon’ble Judges Association, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary- Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad a 2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Registrar (Administration) High Court Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO. 25176 OF 2008 Between: A. Chennaiah s/o Late Chennaiah aged 54 years ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary- Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Registrar (Administration) High Court Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO. 23601 OF 2008 Between: Smt M. Uma Rani W/o Suryanarayana Murthy and 26 others .... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary- Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Registrar (Administration) High Court Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO. 21768 OF 2008 Between: A.P. High Court Employees Service Association represented by its Presient N. Chandrasekhar S/o N. Rajeswara Rao aged 41 years. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary- Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Registrar (Administration) High Court Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal. All the Writ Petitions are filed challenging the validity of memo No. 1943/32/Appellant/PC1/2006 dated 3.3.2006 issued by the first respondent and the consequential order ROC.No. 5753 of 2007-Estt dated 8.7.2008 of the second respondent as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners who are employed in the service of High Court, had acquired a Degree in Law from recognized universities in the country as they felt that knowledge of law would help them in discharge of their duties in a better way in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that vide G.O.Ms.No. 142 Finance and Planning (F.W.PC.II) Department dated 3.4.1996, the first respondent issued orders according sanction for allowing two advance increments to certain categories of employees working in the High Court, who acquired a law degree and subsequently, orders extending the similar benefit to steno-typists, typists, computer operators, court masters, copyists and examiners, working in the High Court of A.P. were issued by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No. 147 dated 20.10.2000, G.O.Ms.No. 180 dated 15.10.2000 and G.O.Ms.No. 37 dated 13.3.2001. It is also stated that the benefit of advance increments for acquiring higher qualification of law was given to the categories of employees mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 142 dated 3.4.1996 from the date of the said G.O or the date of acquisition of qualification whichever is later. The categories of employees such as Steno –Typists, Typists, Computer Operators, Copyists and Examiners, working in the High Court of A.P. were subsequently given the benefit in the year 2000-2001 and this is after introduction of Revised Pay scales of 1999 with effect from 1.7.1998. It is further stated that the Pay Revision Commission, 1999 (PRC, 1999) in its report recommended for discontinuance of payment of advance increments to employees who acquired higher qualifications such as LLB and it recommended for prospective discontinuance of the said benefit. The Government of A.P. accepted the said recommendations of the PRC, 1999 vide memo dated 3.3.2006. It will however be relevant to note the decision of the Supreme Court of India taken on 14.7.2000 in R.P. ( c ) 78-79 of 2000 in Civil Appeal No. 1527 and 1528 of 1999, which reads as under: “We are of the view that some benefit must be granted to the review petitioners also. It may be that in Government where LL.B is not required, Advance Increments are not given to the employees on passing LL.B. It may be that LL.B Degree is not relevant in certain Departments of the Government. But so far a Judicial Departments is concerned, LL.B Degree is relevant. That was the basis on which the above increments for possessing LL.B Degree were extended to the employees of Judicial Department. We do not see any reason for denying the above benefit to the review petitioners also. The petitioners shall also be entitled to these increments. We allow the Review Petition and modify the judgment passed by this Court on 16th March, 1999 to the extent that we had denied such advance increments to the petitioners, if any amount of increments which are previously disbursed to the review petitioners and had been recovered by the department, the same will be paid back to them. Further, arrears of such increments shall also now be paid and the increments shall now be paid and the increments shall also be paid in future also, as per the present order.” This Court in MD. AZAMATHULLA KHAN VS. STATE OF A.P [1] also directed recovery of advance increments already sanctioned to Government employees after 1.7.1998 as the State Government accepted the recommendation of the PRC, 1999. Following the same, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 8.7.2008 decided to discontinue the payment of amounts towards advance increments for higher qualifications granted with effect from 1.7.1998 and to recover the said increments with effect from17.3.2007 in 12 equal instalments from July, 2008 onwards. It is further submitted that though the second respondent has recovered the amounts for the past three months, the same is still not credited to the Government account as such the same may be refunded to the petitioners in the event of the writ petitions being allowed by this Court. The second respondent has started recovery of the advance increments paid to the members of the petitioner association from July, 2008 onwards, which is arbitrary and illegal and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed these Writ Petitions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the Government itself has taken the policy decision for discontinuing the Advance Increments pursuant to the recommendations of the PRC, 1999 with effect from 1.7.1998, and that the amount already paid need not be recovered. He has also drawn our attention to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, wherein this Court in Writ Petition No. 776 of 2008 by order dated 12.6.2008 held as under: “Admittedly, the applicants-respondents are working as Court Master and Sr. Stenographer, respectively, and discharging the duties as are being discharged by their counter parts working in this High Court and under those circumstances, there is no reason why, the respondents- applicants should not be extended the benefit of two advance increments for possessing additional qualification of degree in law in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 182 dated 17.7.1987. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage itself.” He has also drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 11808 of 2006, wherein this Court held as under: “In view of the same, we feel that it will not be just and proper to insist for recovery of the amounts, which were already paid to the Writ Petitioners.” He has further drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SYED ABDUL QADIR AND OTHRS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHRS[2], wherein the Supreme Court at paragraphs 57, 58 and 59 held as under: “ 57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995 Supp (1) SCC 18: 1995 SCC (L&S) 248, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India ((1994) 2 SCC 521; Union of India V. M. Bhaskar ((1996) 4 SCC 416: 1996 SCC (L&S) 967, V. Gangaram V Director ((1997) 6 SCC 139; 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652, Col.B.J Akkara (Retd) V. Government of India ((2006) 11 SCC 492; (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 508, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh ((2006) 8 SCC 647 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S)16 and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur ((2000) 10 SCC 99 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 394). 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” In view of the above judgment, all the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. In view of the policy decision taken by the Government pursuant to the recommendations of PRC, 1999, towards advance increments for higher qualifications granted with effect from 1.7.1998, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the Government. But however, we direct that the amounts already paid up to 17.3.2007, towards advance increment/family planning incentive increments shall not be recovered from the employees. Further it is made clear that from 17.3.2007 if any advance increments are granted to the employees, the Government is at liberty to recover the same. Accordingly, the Writ Petition are disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 19.08.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] 1996 (1) ALT 432 (DB) [2] (2009) 3 SCC 475