HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD HONOUBLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.17151 OF 2000 DATE:03.12.2010 BETWEEN: Y.Tatachari …PETITIONER AND: Agriculture University, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Registrar. …RESPONDENT. HONOUBLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.17151 OF 2000 ORDER : The petitioner was a Horticulturist with the respondent- University. He however, has since retired from service. The petitioner was on study leave from January, 1989 till July, 1990. On the ground that the petitioner has not completed the course for the prosecution of which he was on leave, the respondent directed him to refund the money received by him towards salary which was at Rs.1,08,957/-. The respondent issued a memo on 13.06.2000 for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. The petitioner impugnes the same. The petitioner also sought for the implementation of the U.G.C. scales. So far as the relief of the implementation of the U.G.C. scales is concerned, the relief has become infructuous, for the reason that the petitioner has retired from service and also since the U.G.C. scales would appear to have already been implemented by the respondent- university. The dispute is relating to the first relief, viz., withholding of the proceedings dated 13.06.2000 issued by the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted study leave from January, 1989 till July, 1990. Again admittedly the petitioner has not completed the Ph.D., course to prosecute which the petitioner has obtained study leave. The petitioner again chose another subject in 1991 for Ph.D. It would appear that the petitioner has not completed Ph.D. in that branch as well. The main point however is that the petitioner has not completed Ph.D. after obtaining study leave with full pay from January, 1989 till July, 1990. Thus, the leavage given to the petitioner by the respondent-university could not be utilised by the respondent. The respondent therefore is certainly entitled to recover the salary to the extent of the payment for the leave period, from the petitioner. Sri T.Durga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-university had pointed out that the University had already recovered the amount from the arrears of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned proceedings were in fact implemented by the respondent. I agree with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-university that the impugned memo was issued justifiably, since the petitioner has not completed the course for which he obtained leave. I, therefore, see no merits in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition therefore dismissed. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 3rd December 2010 PNV