IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 418 of 2006 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/01/2006 in WP NO : 3248 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s.A.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd., represented by its Chief Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station, Ibrahimpatnam, krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND Ch.Gangaraju, s/o Krishna Murthy, r/o Qr.No.JE-310, Security Colony, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.S.BHASKARA DEV The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.418 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the respondent-A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd. is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge dated 25.1.2006 passed in W.P.No.3248 of 2005. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Tester in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (presently A.P.Genco) in 1964 and was later appointed as Supervisor (Electrical) Department in 1969 and thereafter deputed to work in the R & B Department in November, 1969 with which he worked till April, 1990 and was repatriated to the A.P.S.E.B. While he was on deputation in the R & B Department, his services were regularized in the cadre of Additional Assistant engineer with eﬀect from 04.01.1970 and he retired on attaining superannuation on 31.07.1994. Three years after the superannuation, the appellant, by a memo dated 21.05.1997 cancelled the annual grade increments sanctioned to the writ petitioner from 04.01.1972 onwards and re-ﬁxed his pay besides directing recovery of the alleged excess incremental beneﬁts received by the writ petitioner during his tenure in R & B Department. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.6258 of 1997. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 17.09.1994 declaring that the memo be treated as a show-cause notice and the writ petitioner was directed to submit his objections to the said memo. On ﬁling the objections, the appellant issued the impugned memo dated 27.11.2004 cancelling the annual grade increments sanctioned by the R & B Department from 22.4.1977 onwards. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned single Judge after elaborately considering the issue, held that the writ petitioner cannot be said to be vicariously associated with the errors of the original employer or the employer with whom he worked on deputation-R & B Department and that the appellant is not an agency for the R & B Department for recoveries of the increments paid to the writ petitioner irregularly and accordingly allowed the writ petition by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- for the reason that the writ petitioner was deprived of withholding and delayed payment of the pensionary benefits. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent-writ petitioner. The learned single Judge gave categorical ﬁnding that the basis of the impugned order is that the writ petitioner cannot be said to have completed his period of probation satisfactorily as he was required to pass the Accounts Test for Assistant Engineer/Additional Assistant Engineer (Electrical) during the period of probation as per Regulation Part-III annexure-IV and as the writ petitioner has not passed the said examination, he was not entitled either for declaration of probation or incremental beneﬁts. But, according to the appellant, the writ petitioner is not entitled for incremental beneﬁts beyond 22.4.1977 and as the incremental beneﬁts were erroneously released by the R & B Department, they could be recovered by the A.P.S.E.B. After considering the Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which enables the recovery fro the employee of any loss caused to the employer, which also sets out the right of the employer to withhold or withdraw the pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a speciﬁed period, the learned single Judge held that it is nobody’s case that the writ petitioner had mislead the A.P.S.E.B, the R & B or the A.P.Genco to release increments in his favour and it is also not the case of the appellant that the writ petitioner committed any misconduct or occasioned loss either to the R & B Department or to the A.P. Genco. The substratum of the appellant’s case is that increment beneﬁts were erroneously paid to the writ petitioner by the R & B Department and therefore they are being recovered by A.P. Genco, but, in the absence of any legal provision, such recoveries cannot be sustained and withholding of the pensionary benefits on that ground is justiﬁed and therefore, the learned single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition by imposing costs for such delayed payment. Further, for the delayed payment of the pension, an employee is entitled to interest on such delayed payment, as held by the Apex Court in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India And Others ((1999) 8 SCC 110). The discretion exercised by the learned single Judge does not suﬀer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. In view of the same, we see no merit in the writ appeal and is liable to be dismissed. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ______________________ 10th NOVEMBER, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Tsr. Copy to 1 The Chief Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, M/s.A.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada Thermal Power Station, Ibrahimpatnam, krishna District. 2. Two C.D. copies.