1. Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appears for the appellants.

               Learned counsel Sri Gurram Srinivas appears for the respondent.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned writ court allowing W.P.No.27387 of 2023 filed by the respondent herein.

3. The learned writ court by the impugned judgment set aside the order dated 10.07.2020 whereby recovery of Rs.36,784/- was made from the gratuity amount of the respondent on account of not having passed the Accounts Test Part – I within the period of two years, which was a condition on the grant of Special Promotion Post Scale – II on completion of 24 years of service to the respondent who was serving as Librarian in the appropriate grade. The learned writ court directed the appellants to release the refund amount, as the impugned action was without any notice and in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The learned writ court also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih ((2014) 8 SCC 883).

4. There is a delay of 228 days in filing the instant appeal for condonation of which I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed.

5. However, though the prayer for delay is not seriously opposed, learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the present appeal on merits.

6. From the conspectus of facts borne on record, which are not in dispute, it appears that the respondent could not satisfy the condition of passing Accounts Test Part – I within the period of two years, since he retired within two years on 30.09.2018. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated for recovery without any notice to the respondent.

7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that even if the increments were paid on pay fixation on account of promotion to Scale – II on completion of 24 years of service and the respondent could not pass the Accounts Test Part – I within two years period, but after his retirement any recovery if permissible in law would be made only after compliance of principles of natural justice by issuing proper notice to show cause.

8. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 10.07.2020, though rightly has been interfered by the learned writ court on grounds of non- compliance of principles of natural justice, but the learned writ court ought to have remanded the matter for compliance of principles of natural justice by issuing a show cause notice upon the respondent before recovering the alleged amount. The learned writ court had instead straightaway directed release of consequential monetary benefits to the respondent and refund the amount deducted. The latter part of the impugned direction is, therefore, interfered. It is open for the appellants to issue show cause notice and take a decision upon consideration of the respondent’s reply on the question of recovery of any amount allegedly paid in excess.

9. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is allowed and the writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.