IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 551 of 2007 Between: A.Bhommaiah S/o.Mallaiah O/o.Director, S.C.E.R.T., Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Education Dept., secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District 3 The Parishad Educational Officer, Zilla Parishad, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District 4 The Director of Local funds, Govt of AP., Hyderabad 5 The Audit officer, Local Funds, Karimnagar, Karimnagar district .....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 order or direction or writ more particularly in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order in OA.No.8603/2001 dated 22.11.2005 and quash the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: A.DEEPTHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I 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 and connected with the Order dated 22.11.2005 passed in O.A. No.8603 of 2001 and to quash the same, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. The petitioner herein filed the above OA assailing Memo No.0577/291/A1/PC-1/2001 dated 16.6.2001 issued by the first respondent and consequently to waive audit objection in Lr.L.F.No.A2/362/97 dated 19.6.1997 issued by the 4th respondent insofar as it relates to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as School Assistant in the year 1976 and was working as Supervisor in Science. While so, pursuant to Rule 5(g)(i) of GO Ms. No. 288 Finance & Planning dated 17.11.1986, the first respondent issued GO Ms. No. 217 Finance & Planning dated 6.4.1990, in terms of which, pay of the petitioner and others was revised and pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.1630/-. During the course of audit, the 5th respondent has taken an objection while auditing the Local Fund Accounts of the 2nd respondent in the year 1994-95, to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to only substantive pay without addition of one increment and, consequently, the 4th respondent submitted its audit report dated 19.6.1997 recommending for cancellation of the revised pay and for recovery of the amount to the tune of Rs.11,297.60 for the period from 1.7.1986 to 31.12.1994. The Tribunal, while dismissing the O.A., as pre- mature, has observed that had any recovery been ordered by the impugned Memo dated 16.6.2001, then appropriate orders could have been passed, apart from the interim stay granted by it. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein preferred this Writ Petition inter alia contending that pursuant to the audit objection taken by the 5th respondent during the audit of Local Fund Accounts, the 4th respondent had submitted its Audit Report through letter No.A2/363/97 dated 19.6.1997 recommending for cancellation of the revised pay and consequently, ordered for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,297.60, and, therefore, the Tribunal is in error in observing that there was no order for recovery of the amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that pursuant to the notice for recovery of the alleged excess paid amount, the petitioner submitted representation 3.1.1998 to the first respondent putting forth the analogy of the pay fixation in terms of the Government Orders, which was also not considered and consequently, the Memo dated 16.6.2001 came to be issued mechanically. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this court is of the firm view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the O.A. filed before the Tribunal is pre-mature. An amount of Rs.11,297.60 was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the audit objection raised by the 4th respondent. Therefore, in that view of the matter, without further delving on the merits or demerits of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for passing orders afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such disposal of the O.A. by the Tribunal, there shall be stay of recovery of the impugned amount. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded, in the above terms. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. April 30, 2008 MAS.