THE GOVT OF AP., IANDCAD DEPT., AND 4 OTHERS v. M.LAXMAIAH, ADILABAD DISTRICT AND ANOTHER
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-08. THE GOVT OF AP., IANDCAD DEPT., AND 4 OTHERS v. M.LAXMAIAH, ADILABAD DISTRICT AND ANOTHER. Read...
Judgment text
[ 348e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15281 OF 2010 Between: 1. The Govt. of A. P. rep. by its Secretary, I & CAD Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, I&CAD Dept. , A. P , Errumanzil, Hyderabad 3. The Asst. Pay & Accounts officer, Sriram Sagar Projects, lrrigation Wing, L. M. D. Colony, Karimnagar District 4. The Executive Engineer, l&CAD Dept-, Divn. lV, Yellampally Barrage Project circle (YMPC) Manchirial, Adilabad. 5. The Director of Accounts, Sriramsagar Project, LMD Colony, Karimnagar District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 M. Laxmaiah, Working as Superintendent, Division No. lV, Yellampally Barriage Project Circle (YBPC) Manchiryal, Adilabad District 2. Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, rep.
by its Registrar. .. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more pa(icularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the A. P. Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA. No. 11272|2OO2 dated 11. 4. 2008 as being erroneous illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2010 (wP MP. NO:1924/. OF2O1O Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the r ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou : may be pleased to suspend the orders of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal, - /derabad passed in OA. No. 1 127212002 dated 1 1 . 4. 2008 pending disposal of tht rurit petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI R. SHEETAL KUMAR, GP r: )R SERVTCES-l Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI K.
VASUDEVA RED I / The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS'TICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W. P. No. l5281 OF 2010 08. 12. 2025 Between: The Government of A. P. , Rep. by its Secretary, I & CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 4 others . . Petitioners AND M. Laxmaiah and another . . . Respondents (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy) $DEB, Heard Mr. R. Sheetal Kumar, Ieamed Government Pleader for Services I appearing for the petitioners 2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed by the State Govemment assailing the order passed by the Andfua Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O. A. No. 11272 of 2002 dated I 1. 04. 2008 :{ $ f 3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal v, ile allowing the Original Application set aside the impugned o. ( cr passed by 'Ihe rcspondent No. 4 therein.
impugned order wa; so tar as the rccovery of stagnation increment is concerned, u,l i;h, according to the St. ate Government, was allegedly granted to t c respondent employee. 'l'he 4. order of the Tribunal would go to j Low that the inrpugned orders were passcd without affording a p,) sonal hearing to the petitioners. Down the line, this Bench is of I rc considered view that the aforesaid issue no longer res integra a ; the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF pUNJl, I vs. RAFIe MASIH (WHITE WASHER)r has already in para;raph l8 laid down certail conditions under which the recovery Las been held to be impermissible under law. We are clearly of tlr view that the case of the respondent employee in the instant casr: squarely lalls under the conditions so stipulated by the Hon,ble Sup :cme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Ll/asher) (supra). 'AIR 201 5 SC 696 siT%tz :+ "r' 5.
The writ petition preferred by the State Government, therefore, would have no merits in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White ll/asher) (supra) 6. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The order of the Tribunal is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// o SECTION OFFTCER To, '1 . One CC to SRI K. VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] at court for the state of Telangana 2. :wo ccs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High I Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies BSR LS HIGH COURT DATED: 0811212025 ' - - r-:' /'t/:. . \ 1. , \'' \. \\ ,j f. i I ORDER 2I t :L tu6 7: 3 \" { WP. No. 15281 of 2010 \o ,i -1) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, I WITHOUT COSTS I t
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.