IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 12209 OF 1999 Between: M.Lakshmi Narayana ..... PETITIONER AND The Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Worker’s Provident and Mutual Aid Co-operative Society Limited rep. by its Co-operative Sub- Registrar/Special Officer, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 12209 OF 1999 O R D E R : The petitioner herein was appointed as Floor Boy on 11.10.1988 by the 1st respondent-Society. By subsequent proceedings dated 31.03.1999, the services of the petitioner were regularised and he was placed on regular time scale with effect from 01.07.1993. Pursuant thereto Rs.76,016/- towards the arrears to which he was entitled to was also paid to him. However, the impugned order came to be passed on 12.06.1999 seeking to recover the said amount of Rs.76,016/- purportedly on a clarification given by the Deputy Registrar, City Circle. The said order dated 12.06.1999 has been challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the impugned action of the respondents for recovery of the amounts already paid to the petitioner without issuing any prior notice and without conducting any enquiry is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though appearance has been entered on behalf of the 1st respondent, no counter affidavit has been filed contradicting the specific plea taken by the petitioner that the impugned order dated 12.06.1999 was passed without any prior notice. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order was stayed by this Court during the pendency of this writ petition on 24.06.1999. In the facts and circumstances and in the absence of any counter affidavit contradicting the petitioner’s plea in the writ petition, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to pass a fresh order, if they so desire following due process of law. No costs. ​_____________ Date: 17.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd