THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9087 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the Telegram order issued by the first respondent in No.P6/II/92603/SP503/98-12/21 dated 7.4.1999, whereunder the third respondent-District Treasury Officer, Chittoor was directed to stop payment of pension of petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. It appears, inadvertently the unaided service rendered by the petitioner was taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing her pension on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the impugned order was passed for recovering the excess pension paid to the petitioner. However, it appears that the pension, on the basis of regularized service is being paid as of today. The leaned counsel for petitioner states that in fact the petitioner is entitled for reckoning the unaided service rendered by her for the purpose of pension prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 3.11.1998. Petitioner retired from service immediately after issuance of the said G.O. In this regard, it may be necessary to notice that when G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 3.11.1998 was challenged before this Court, this Court struck down the said G.O. However, on filing SLP, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court by upholding the said G.O. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are not correct in reducing the pension of the petitioner calculating the service rendered in the unaided vacancy. Be that as it may, the respondents are seeking to recover an amount of Rs.43,455/- since pension of the petitioner was calculated as per Rules in vogue before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 3.11.1998. The petitioner retired from service with effect from 30.11.1998. Therefore, it cannot be said that pension calculated is illegal. The pension of the petitioner was calculated as per rules in vogue, just before her retirement and on the basis of that, petitioner was paid little excess pension. In this regard, nothing can be attributed either to the petitioner or to the respondent authorities. This all happened in the transitional period. Therefore, it may not be correct on the part of the respondents in trying to recover the so called excess pension paid to the petitioner at this length of time. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 2.2.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9087 of 1999 2.2.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9087 of 1999 Date: 2nd February, 2009 Between: P.Syamala Devi .. Petitioner And The Accountant General (A&E), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents