IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7242 of 2009 Between: A. Yanadi Reddy, E-44467, Retired TTI, R/o. H.No.39-8-19, 1st Line, Gopal Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Ongole, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in recovering a sum of Rs.32,000/- from the amounts payable to the petitioner at the time of his retirement, as illegal and arbitrary. While working as Conductor, the petitioner suffered the penalty of deferment of annual increment with cumulative effect for a period of six months, vide order, dated 27.05.1982 passed by the disciplinary authority. The said order received affirmation by the appellate and review authorities. While settling the retirement benefits, respondent No.2 recovered the above-mentioned amount of Rs.32,000/-. The petitioner’s enquiries revealed that the said amount was recovered towards the excess amounts paid to him on account of wrong fixation of salary, ignoring the penalty imposed on him. According to the petitioner, recovery of the said amount after more than 25 years is bad. S ri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that while implementing the order of penalty, the respondents have mistakenly paid the salary without treating the penalty as having cumulative effect and accordingly, excess amount of Rs.32,000/- was paid. The fact that the effect of implementation of penalty of withholding of deferment of annual increment with cumulative effect would lead to recovery of a sum of Rs.32,000/-, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not impressed by his contention that the respondents may not be permitted to recover the said amount 25 years after the levy of penalty. If a bonafide mistake was committed by the respondents in giving effect to the order of penalty, they are not prevented in law from rectifying the said mistake at the time of settling the accounts of the petitioner consequent on his retirement. In the absence of any such legal bar, the said action of the respondents cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9492 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th APRIL, 2009. kvni