IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 18947 of 2008 Between: Tandasa Trinadha Rao Retired Grade I Hindi Pandit, Gandhi Nagar, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Srikakulam, Srikakulam District,. 2 Audit Officer, State Audit (Local Funds) Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District,. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without furnishing the copy of objection the year 95-96 by the respondents to the petitioner by withholding the emoluments as illegal, improper and void. By Setting aside the Order in O.A 64/2005 dt. 10-4-205 consequently the petitioner is entitled all emoluments and pass order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been ﬁled with a prayer to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not furnishing a copy of the audit objection for the year 1995- 96, withholding the emoluments as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the order in O.A.No. 64 of 2005 dated 10.4.2008. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retired Grade-I Hindi Pandit and his pension is also being paid to him from 1.8.1998 onwards. It is stated that while the petitioner was in service, the Government introduced Re-grouped pay scales to all the categories of teachers through G.O.Ms.No. 1000 (S) Education Department, dated 17.12.1982 and later issued orders to protecting the normal date of increment to the teachers who opted for the Re-grouped pay scales, vide G.O.Rt.No. 1528, Education Department, dated 15.12.1984. Accordingly, the petitioner’s pay was ﬁxed vide proceedings dated 8.3.1996. It is stated that during the course of audit for the year 1995-96, it was found that the pay of the petitioner was erroneously ﬁxed and orders were issued to recover the excess pay drawn by him. The grievance of the petitioner is that even without serving the said audit objection on him, the respondents have stopped granting his retirement beneﬁts. Accordingly, he made a representation to the ﬁrst respondent on 1.11.2000 requesting to forward the audit objection, but there was no response. The ﬁrst respondent replied to the legal notice sent by the petitioner stating that his service beneﬁts would be sanctioned after the cancellation of the audit objection. As no orders were passed in pursuance to the said notice, the petitioner again issued a notice to the ﬁrst respondent on 21.7.2003 to waive the audit objection, in view of the instructions issued by the Government through G.O.Ms.No. 297, Finance and Planning Department, dated 3.8.1993, to the eﬀect that the pay of teacher appointed to Special Grade/Special Promotion Post shall be ﬁxed as per G.O.Ms.No. 164, Finance and Planning Department, dated 1.6.1982 and also G.O.Ms.No. 78, Finance and planning Department, dated 13.8.1984 and if any amounts are already recovered from the teachers, the appointing authorities shall refund the same. As the ﬁrst respondent gave a reply to the notice sent by the applicant on 6.8.2003, stating that he is incompetent to waive the audit objection and that he has already addressed a letter to the second respondent to examine the issue in the light of the government orders, he filed O.A.No. 64 of 2005 seeking a direction to the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No. 297, dated 3.8.1993 and as per the clariﬁcation issued by the Director of Local Fund Audit, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, duly set aside the Audit Objection of 1995-96 and to grant service beneﬁts viz., (i) 8 years scale in PRC 1998 as grade I Hindi Pandit (ii) Half pay leave after his retirement (iii) Earned leave of 50 days and (iv) payment of Group Insurance funds of Rs. 7,830/- (Seven thousand eight hundered thirty including up-to-date interest. Counter is ﬁled by the District Audit Oﬃcer, State Audit Srikakulam, stating that the periodical increment accrues with eﬀect from 30.12.1983, which has to be sanctioned with eﬀect from 1.12.1983 with monetary beneﬁts with eﬀect from 1.12.1983. But the applicant was given the periodical increments with eﬀect from 30.12.1982 again his pay was also raised in the re-grouped scales, resulting in sanction of two periodical increments. Accordingly, the audit took an objection and the said objection has been misunderstood by the applicant, alleging that he has been deprived of the beneﬁt of G.O.Ms.No. 1528 Education dated 5.12.1984 and G.O.Ms.No. 297, Finance and Planning Department, dated 3.8.1993 therefore, these G.Os have no connection with the audit objection and the objection taken is correct. The Tribunal after perusing the entire material on record dismissed the O.A holding that the audit objection and in the consequential proceedings of the Chief Executive Oﬃcer, Zilla Parishad, inasmuch as the audit objection taken cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary and inasmuch as G.O.Ms.No. 297 has nothing to do with the case of the applicant-petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the audit authorities have raised an objection with regard to the audit for the year 1995-96 regarding ﬁxation of scales of the applicant-petitioner stating that the pay of the applicant was erroneously ﬁxed at Rs. 760/- as on 1.12.1982 and again his increment was ﬁxed with eﬀect from 30.12.1982 instead of 1.12.1983 and orders were issued to recover the excess pay drawn by the applicant. It is further contended that even without serving the said audit objection on the petitioner, the respondents have stopped granting his retirement beneﬁts, therefore, the order is violative and against the principles of natural justice. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Services-II fairly conceded that the audit objection raised was not communicated to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a retired Grade-I Hindi Pandit and his pension is also being paid to him from 1.8.1998. It is also not in dispute that while the petitioner was in service, the Government introduced Re-grouped pay scales to all the categories of teachers through G.O.Ms.No. 1000(S) Education Department dated 17.12.1982 and accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was ﬁxed vide proceedings dated 8.3.1996. It is also not in dispute that during the course of audit for the year 1995-96, it was found that the pay of the petitioner was erroneously ﬁxed and orders were issued to recover the excess pay drawn by the petitioner. Accordingly, he made a representation dated 1.11.2000 to the ﬁrst respondent requesting to forward the audit objection report but there was no response. Hence, he ﬁled O.A. seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the G.O.Ms.No. 297 dated 3.8.1993 and G.O.Ms.No. 1528 Education dated 5.12.1984. The relevant portion in G.O.Ms.No. 1528 Education dated 5.12.1984 reads as under: “2. Normally, when ﬁxation of pay under F.R. 22(a)(i) is allowed, the next increment will be allowed only on completion of the prescribed period of service to earn an increment in the relevant scale. The original date of increment will cease to be valid when once pay ﬁxation in F.R. 22 (a)(i) is allowed. But as per revised pay scale rules 1974 and 1978, in the case of those who opted for the revised scale of 1978 from 1.4.1974 and in the case of 1974 scales from 1.1.1974 although pay ﬁxation was eﬀected under F.R.22 (a)(i) the original date of increment was allowed to stand as a concession. On the same analogy Federation of Andhra Pradesh Teachers Organization has represented that the original date of increment may be allowed to remain unaltered in respect of those teachers who are aﬀected by the regrouped pay scales. 3. After careful consideration, Government have decided to extend the said concession to the teachers who are aﬀected by the regrouped scales. Accordingly, they direct that the teachers who opt for Regrouped Scales with eﬀect from 1.12.1982 be allowed to draw their next increment in the pre-regrouped scales on the original date of increment in the regrouped scale (i.e. 1978 pay scale)” It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A held that the audit objection taken cannot be held to be illegal and arbitrary and the Government Orders issued dated 5.12.1984 and 3.8.1993 have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Be that as it may, as the main grievance of the petitioner is that without communicating the audit objections raised, the respondent authorities withheld the monetary beneﬁts of the petitioner from his pension and as the learned Government Pleader also fairly conceded that they have not communicated the audit objections to the petitioner, we direct the ﬁrst respondent to communicate the audit objection raised by the audit authorities to the petitioner so as to give him an opportunity. The petitioner is at liberty to ﬁle an explanation to the audit objection and the respondent authorities after considering the explanation submitted, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. However, it is clariﬁed that till passing of orders by the respondent authorities, no amounts shall be recovered from the pension of the petitioner. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Dt. 4.09.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Srikakulam, Srikakulam District,. 2 Audit Officer, State Audit (Local Funds) Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District,. 3. CC to G.P. for Services –II, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. 4. 2CD copies