IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10450 of 2008 Between: P.C.SUBBARAYUDU S/O. BUSHANNA R/o. Flat No. 105 C Block, Siver Spring apartment, (Modi Builders) H.M.T. Town Ship. Chintal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secreatary, HMA, UD Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad . 2. The Engineer-in Chief, Public Health, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer ( Public Health ), Mulapet, Nellore. 4. The District Audit Officer, State Audit, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipality, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....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 writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued by 5th respondent vide proc. Roc.No. 8126/2002-E2 dt. 9-12-2004 (to the extent of recovery) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of natural justice and also set aside the order of Hon'ble A.P. Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A. No. 3424/05 dt. 14-2-2008 consequently direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest which was deducted from retirement benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.10450 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the notice issued by 5th respondent vide Proceedings in Roc.No.8126/2002-E2 dated 09-12-2004 to the extent of recovery as illegal and arbitrary and also set aside the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.3424 of 2005 dated 14-02-2008 and consequently direct the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest, which was deducted from the retirement benefits given to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed the said O.A. before the Tribunal to quash the notice issued by 5th respondent herein insofar as it relates to recovery of excess amount paid to him during the period 22-09-1977 to 20-9-1994. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents cannot recover the amount from the retiral benefits and the increase in salary is due to the increments earned at the relevant time. The Tribunal after considering the notice recorded that the petitioner has been called upon to submit option form in respect of pay fixation pertaining to the Revised Pay Scales of the year 1993-1999 and further observed that the impugned notice is not a final order and accordingly dismissed O.A. giving liberty to seek appropriate legal remedy in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the pay fixation. 3. We have perused the notice dated 09-12-2004 issued by 5th respondent and also the order of the Tribunal challenged in this writ petition. Though notice is issued calling the petitioner to submit the option forms, it is stated in the writ affidavit that 5th respondent has stated in the counter filed before the Tribunal that they have already deducted a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- basing on the audit report and the same is not controverted by the respondents. Thus, the apprehension of the petitioner is that the net result of the notice was ordering recovery of the so-called excess amount paid to him during the period from 22-9-1977 to 20-9-1994. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has a cause of action to file O.A. on the basis of the notice and therefore inclined to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both the parties, as to the legality or otherwise of the recovery effected under the notice impugned in the O.A. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 09-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}