- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2549 WP No. 1760 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1760 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI S SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, FORMERLY WORKING AS METER READER, S -2 SUB DIVISION, BESCOM BANGALORE -560030. NOW R/AT S SHIVASHANKAR, NO.33, M V LANE , PARVATHI PURAM, BANGALORE SOUTH-560004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRACHAR M., AND SRI M NAGARAJU, ADVS.) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE, K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATE OFFICE, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2549 WP No. 1760 of 2022 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) JAYANAGARA DIVISION, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED BANGALORE-560070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV. FOR SRI ASHWIN G RAJ AND SRI YATHISH S., ADVS. FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE OM DATED 04.11.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTION TO DRAW TO PAY PENSION AS PER EXISTING PAY SCALE AND ALSO QUASH THE RECOVERY ORDER AND ALSO ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTIONS TO REFUND THE RECOVERED AMOUNT AT THE RATE OF INTEREST 18 PERCENT PER ANNUM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired Meter Reader of the first respondent-BESCOM is before this Court, questioning the O.M. dated 04.11.2020 bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/d«/¯É/¸À¯É/ »¸À2/¹¸À3/6448 (Annexure-G) by which, the petitioner’s pay is re-fixed. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to restore his pension as per existing pay scale - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2549 WP No. 1760 of 2022 and for a direction to refund withheld DCRG amount along with interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner was working as a Meter Reader in the respondent-BESCOM. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020. Subsequent to his retirement, under O.M. dated 04.11.2020, the petitioner’s pay was revised to his disadvantage from 01.06.1996. Questioning the said O.M., re-fixing is pay to his disadvantage, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra Achar through video conference and learned counsel Sri.Yathish S and Ashwin Raj G for Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that action of the respondents in re-fixing the pay of the petitioner subsequent to his retirement that too without - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2549 WP No. 1760 of 2022 notice is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel would submit that no notice whatsoever is issued before revising pay of the petitioner to his disadvantage. Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to impugned O.M. dated 04.11.2020 and submit that pay of the petitioner is re-fixed from 01.06.1996 without there being any reason. Further, learned counsel would submit that no recovery could be effected from a retired person that too belonging to Group-C post. Further, learned counsel would submit that pay of the petitioner earlier was fixed treating the period from 01.10.1996 to 07.10.1998 as medical leave, which was subsequently withdrawn to re-fix the pay to his disadvantage. As the action of the respondents is without notice and no recovery could be effected from a retired person belonging to Group-C, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was imposed with punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2549 WP No. 1760 of 2022 effect and to treat the period of absence as LWA i.e., from 01.10.1996 to 07.10.1998 under order dated 07.10.1998 of the respondent-Board. In view of the said order, petitioner’s pay was revised under impugned O.M. dated 04.11.2020. Since the impugned revision of pay disadvantage to the petitioner is in pursuance of the order of punishment dated 07.10.1998, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the revision of pay. Learned counsel for respondent would also submit that the petitioner has given an undertaking at the time of settling his pension that the respondents could recover any amount which the petitioner had received in excess. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which arise for consideration is as to whether the impugned O.M. dated 04.11.2020, revising the pay of the petitioner to his - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2549 WP No. 1760 of 2022 disadvantage requires interference at the hands of this Court? 7. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative and the O.M. dated 04.11.2020 requires to be interfered with, for the following reasons: The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation as Meter Reader on 31.03.2020. Subsequent to his retirement, the impugned O.M. dated 04.11.2020 is issued revising pay of the petitioner to his disadvantage, from 01.06.1996 till his retirement. The revision of pay under impugned O.M. is without any notice to the petitioner. No notice whatsoever is issued while revising pay of the petitioner to his disadvantage. This revision of pay disadvantage to the petitioner would result in civil consequences. Any action of the State which results in civil consequences shall be preceded by a notice. In the instant case, no notice whatsoever calling upon the petitioner as to why his pay should not be revised is issued. In the said circumstances, the impugned O.M. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2549 WP No. 1760 of 2022 dated 04.11.2020 is in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. The contention of the respondent is that the O.M. revising pay is the result of implementing the order of punishment dated 07.10.1998. The order of punishment withholding one increment and treating the period of absence as LWA is dated 07.10.1998, the respondent- authorities kept quite for more than 22 years without implementing the order of punishment. The respondents having not implemented the order of punishment for more than 22 years could not have taken action to implement the said order of punishment after retirement of the petitioner. When the respondents have failed in implementation of order of punishment while the petitioner was in service, implementing the same subsequent to his retirement is unreasonable and unfair. 9. The revision of pay had resulted in recovery of certain amounts out of DCRG of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB AND - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2549 WP No. 1760 of 2022 OTHERS v/s RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has made it clear that no recovery could be effected from a retired employee or a government servant who is to retire within a period of one year. 10. For the reasons stated above, the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned O.M. dated 04.11.2020 is quashed. (iii) The respondents are directed to release the withheld DCRG with admissible interest, within a period of two months from today. (iv) Respondents are also directed to refix the pension of the petitioner, within the above stated period. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47