IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24907 of 2007 Between: 1 The Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Director of Health, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND K. Imam Hussain S/o.K. Mohammad Anantapur, R/o. D.No.25/385, Momin Street, Anantapur, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with order dt. 28-2-2007 in OA No. 1856/2005 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P.A.T. Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same be holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may be deem fit proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent : MR.POODATTU AMARENDER The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.24907 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 28-2-2007 passed in O.A.No.1856 of 2005 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by which the petitioners have been directed to pay back the amount recovered from the applicant - respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant – respondent was initially appointed as Pumpman and later converted as Male Nursing Orderly and continued in service. The officials have called for the particulars of the applicant from the school concerned to ascertain his date of birth. The Head Master of the RMH School, Ananthapur, informed that the date of birth of the applicant is recorded as 01-7-1940. Thereafter, the first petitioner herein issued proceedings dated 24-4-2002 relieving and retiring the applicant from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30-6-2000, which is with retrospective effect. On that basis, the first petitioner issued memo dated 26-4-2002 asking the applicant to remit the amount paid towards pay and allowances for the period from 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2002. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent – applicant filed above O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 28-2- 2007 while allowing the O.A. directed the official respondents to pay back the amounts, which were recovered from the applicant. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the State. 3. The petitioners contend that the respondent actually had to retire from service on 30-6-2000, but continued beyond that date and as such, the pay and allowances paid during that period is sought to be recovered. 4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the respondent ought to have retired from service on 30-6-2000 and he has no right to continue thereafter and continuance in service without official proceedings is contrary to Rules, therefore recovery is sought through the impugned memo. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent allowed to continue in service and he had rendered service, for which he is entitled to receive the pay and allowances. 5. In the instant case, the officials have sought for the date of birth of the respondent from the school where he had studied and the Headmaster of that school had furnished the particulars. It appears, the respondent had to retire from service on 30-6-2000 and by mistake, he was allowed to continue in service up to 31-3-2002. Admittedly, the respondent had discharged his duties during the said period and he has to be paid salary for the services rendered. It is for the officials to take action well in advance to prevent such mistakes, and the officials are not justified in seeking recovery of the pay and allowances for the period for which the respondent had discharged duties beyond his actual date of superannuation. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 18-06-2008 bsc .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}