The Andhra Pradesh High Court while quashing recovery order issued against a retired post officer observed that he was entitled to pay of HSG-I Postmaster while he was officiating in the said post before completion of 3 years period in the cadre of HSG-II.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing recovery order against the Respondent.

The division-bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed, "So far as the payment of the pay for the officiating post is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly taken the view that the respondent officiated in the post on the orders of the authorities and for the period of officiation, he was entitled for pay in the cadre of HSG-I from the date of his officiating as HSG-I."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Counsel Josyula Bhaskara Rao.

The Respondent was promoted to Higher Selection Grade-II with effect from March 03, 2001 notionally and posted as HSG-II Assistant Post Master (Savings Bank), Srikakulam Head Office with effect from March 03, 2001. He was promoted to HSG-I cadre on ad-hoc basis with effect from February 25, 20024 and on regular basis on May 20, 2005. The respondent retired from service on June 30, 2006. While processing his pension case, the Director of Accounts (Postal) raised the objection that the benefit of FR 22 (1)(a)(1) was not applicable to respondent, as he was TBOP official and posted against norm based post in LSG. His pay had to be regularized from August 21, 1990 and recovered the excess drawn pay and allowances had to be recovered. The objection was also raised that the respondent was promoted to HSG-I cadre ion ad hoc basis with effect from February 25, 2004, whereas he was promoted to HSG-II (Postal) on notional basis with effect from March 03, 2001. As per the existing recruitment rules, the officials who had completed 3 years service in HSG-II grade were eligible for HSG-I promotion. The respondent had completed 3 years service in HSG-II as on March 29, 2004. Hence, he was eligible for consideration for HSG-I scale with effect from March 30, 2004 only. He was paid pay and allowances in excess due to allowing of HSG-I scale from February 25, 2004 to March 29,

Accordinlgy, excess paid pay and allowances towards second time irregular pay fixation in LSG cadre and towards irregular HSG-I promotion before completion of 3 years service in HSG-II cadre both were recovered from the Respondent.

Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the recovery of excess payment of amount on wrong fixation could be recovered and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in passing the impugned order.

The Court observed that Tribunal was right as far as the payment of the pay for the officiating post was concerned.

"In Superintendent of Railway, Vijayawada v. A. Mrutyumjaya Rao, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19718 of 2012, decided on 12.09.2024, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India, R. Kuppuswamy v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India and Selvaraj v. Lt.Governor of Island, Portblair observed that if a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibility, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. Placing reliance thereon, the Coordinate Bench directed that the respondent of that writ petition would be entitled only for the difference of salary for the period of officiation of the post of HSG-I for the period he officiated," the Court observed.

With respect to Tribunal's view that the respondent herein is entitled for all consequential benefits, viz., fixation of pension and retiral benefits, the court observed, "So, as far as the direction to this effect is concerned, we do not find any illegality inasmuch as the present respondent was promoted to HSG-I on regular basis on 20.05.2005. He did not retire working as HSG-I on officiating basis. In A. Mrutyumjaya Rao (supra) and K. Gandhi (supra), the applicants therein were not promoted on regular basis."

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: The Supdt.of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam and 4 others vs. Sri K. Narayana Murthy

Click here to read/ download Order:






Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice Ravi Nath TilhariJustice Nyapathy Vijay

Sheetal Joon