HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2011 Between: The Secretary to Government of A.P. Education Department and four others ………….Petitioners AND S. Veera Setty, retd Grade I Telugu Pandit and three others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 27.1.2020 passed in O.A.No. 3229 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent-applicant was appointed as Telugu Pandit Grade I on 12.9.1971 at ZPHC Yerrapadu Village, Tadvai Mandal, Nizamabad District and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2006. The grievance of the first respondent-applicant is that he was promoted as Grade I Telugu Pandit on 19.7.1974 and he was given 10 years scale on 9.7.1984, 15 years scale on 19.7.1989 and 24 years scale on 19.7.1998. It is stated that in the year 1998 24 years scale was given and the annual grade increment was also given on 25.1.1999, therefore, petitioners herein raised an objection that the applicant-first respondent is not entitled for such increments to draw therefore, the impugned orders dated 28.4.2006 and 10.5.2006 were issued for recovery of Rs. 21,209/- from the DCRG of the first respondent- applicant. The Tribunal allowed the O.A following the judgment of the Apex Court reported in SAHIBRAM VS. HARYANA[1], and set aside the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred this Writ Petition. The learned Government Pleader for Services- I, appearing for the petitioners herein submits that based on the representation of the individual for release of his normal increment on 25.1.1999, the Headmaster released the increment without examining the claim, therefore, the annual grade increment released on 25.1.1999 is irregular and the first respondent-applicant is only eligible for his annual grade increment on 19.7.1999. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-applicant submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and is based on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in SAHIBRAM VS. HARYANA (supra-1), therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. It is on record that the first respondent- applicant was appointed as Telugu Pandit Grade-I on 12.9.1971 and he was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2006. It is also the case of the first respondent-applicant that he never made any application misrepresenting the issue and the petitioners themselves have released such increments. In the judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the first respondent-applicant, reported in SAHIBRAM VS. HARYANA (supra –1), the Apex Court observed as under: “It is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the applicant that the benefit of Higher pay scale was given to him, but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the applicant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the applicant. The above judgment has been followed in A. Sivan Kutty Nair Vs. Secretary to Government reported in 2006(3) SLR 375, wherein it has been held as follows: “Pay scales –Wrong fixation of pay scales- recovery-recovery of excess amount-No misrepresentation or fraud on the part of employee – proceedings of recovery of excess amounts invalid.” In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly set aside the impugned order and rightly allowed the O.A. We see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 06.04.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] 1995 SUPP (1) SCC 18