IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3531 of 2005 Between: Kalanadhabhatla Jagannadha Rao, S/o Reddi Avadhanulu, R/o Kakinada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar ( Administration). 2 The District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. 3 The VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kakinada. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Finance & Planning Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the Order dt. 5-11-2004 in Roc.No. 78/2004-C (1) on the file of the first respondent and the Order dt. 2-5-2003 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction; Award costs and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3.: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) Counsel for Respondent No.4: G.P. for Finance and Planning The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice) In a writ petition to which the petitioner was also one of the petitioners, on an interim application filed, allowances were paid to him and others towards bad climate allowance. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to such allowance. While disposing of the writ petition, no orders were made by the Bench as to whether the amount paid by way of interim relief under the interim orders of this Court would be recovered from those to whom it has been paid. The petitioner though had retired on the day when the writ petition was decided by the Division Bench but being a party to the said writ petition was bound by such orders. Consequently, recovery was sought to be effected and the petitioner has questioned the said order in a writ petition, which was disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal on administrative side and the said appeal was also dismissed. Grievance of the petitioner is that since there is severance of employee and employer relationship, recovery cannot be made from him of the amount which was paid to him pursuant to the interim orders of the Court in the writ petition though the writ petition was dismissed. Such submission has no force at all inasmuch as the payments made under the interim orders are always subject to the result of the writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed without any relief that the amount already paid need not be recovered, there is no merit in the submission that after retirement, the amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ Dated 28..02..2005 _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY msv To 1 The Registrar ( Administration). High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, 2 The District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. 3 The VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kakinada. 4 The Secretary, Finance & Planning Department at Secretariat Government of Andhra Pradesh , Hyderabad. 5 2 CCs to G.P. for Finance & Planning, High Court of A,P. Hyd. 6 2 CD copies. 7. The Section Officer, C Section, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad