THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No. 22720 of 2007 Dated: 06-02-2008 Between: Guduri Padmavathi …Petitioner And The Government of A.P. Finance (F.C.I.) Department, Rep., by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No. 22720 of 2007 Oral Order: (Per: The Hon’ble Sri justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition is directed against the 2nd respondent’s order dated 06-06-2006 whereby an amount of Rs.14,110-00 paid to the petitioner since April, 1999 towards Family Planning Incentive Increment at the rate of Rs.170-00 per month upto February, 2006 is directed to be recovered in thirty four (34) equal monthly installments at Rs.415-00 per month, commencing from the pay bill from June, 2006. The petitioner was paid Family Planning Incentive Increment despite discontinuance of the said benefit pursuant to recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission, 1999, during April, 1999 to February, 2006. The petitioner was therefore normally required to refund the excess unauthorized incremental benefit drawn by him. However, in similar cases considered by this Court and the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in respect of other government servants i.e., W.P.No. 11808 of 2006 judgment dated 08-11-2006 and the O.A.No. 4328 of 2006 in VMA 1325 of 2006 and batch dated 03-01-2007, it was directed that recoveries be not made, while upholding the discontinuance. Consequently, the State Government issued a Memo dated 17-03-2007 intimating the Director of Treasuries and Accounts to implement the orders of the High Court and the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner earlier worked in the unit of the second respondent and was thereafter transferred to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, Nellore district. The impugned order of recoveries was issued by the 2nd respondent, as per the position prevailing prior to the Government Memo dated 17-03-2007. In the light of the judgment of this Court referred to supra and the decision of the State as contained in the Memo dated 17-03-2007, the impugned order directing recovery is seen to be unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Any amounts recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order of the second respondent shall be repaid to him. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated: 06-02-2008 Pvks/*