- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2954 WP No. 12185 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 12185 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: S. G. KUMARASWAMY S/O GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RETD. TAHSILDHAR R/AT NO.281, M G ROAD, VIDYANAGAR POST, HASSAN- 573202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C R SUBRAMANYA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A AND E) PARK HOUSE ROAD BANGALORE – 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2954 WP No. 12185 of 2024 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT OF LIKE NATURE OR ORDER AND TO QUASH THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 22.02.2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel Sri.C.R.Subramanya for petitioner as well as Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 2. The petitioner, a retired Tahsildar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the letter issued by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-E dated 22.02.2024 wherein the petitioner is directed to pay total sum of Rs.1,09,258/- due towards House Building Advance (for short “HBA”) taken by him during his service. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2954 WP No. 12185 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2005. On his retirement, the pension and pensionary benefits are settled and No Due Certificate was issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that unless No Due Certificate is issued, the respondents would not have settled the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. It is submitted that after more than 20 years from the date of petitioner’s retirement, the respondents-Authorities under communication dated 22.02.2024 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,258/- towards HBA which consisted of Principal amount of Rs.6,804/- and interest amount of Rs.1,02,724/-. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has repaid the entire HBA taken by him during his service. It is submitted that on 15.07.1980, the petitioner obtained Rs.30,000/- as HBA and the petitioner was required to repay the same in 135 installments in a sum of Rs.222/- per month, which he has repaid during his service. Further, learned counsel would submit that no - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2954 WP No. 12185 of 2024 amount relating to HBA is due and the balance if any shall not be recovered from the pension. Moreover, he submits that no recovery could be effected from retired person, more so, the petitioner has retired more than 20 years back. Thus, learned counsel pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents would submit that in the year 1997 itself, the Accountant General has pointed out that the petitioner is due towards HBA and further submitted that the petitioner has given an undertaking on 31.07.2005 while settling the pension and pensionary benefits stating that he would be liable to pay if any amount is due to the State. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Even after several opportunities, the State has not filed its statement of objections. But the affidavit of Deputy Commissioner dated 04.01.2025 is filed stating - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2954 WP No. 12185 of 2024 that the Accountant General under letter dated 25.01.2024 intimated that the petitioner is due in a sum of Rs.6,804/- towards principal amount of HBA which is liable to be repaid with interest at Rs.1,02,724/-. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether at this length of time, the respondents could recover the balance of HBA along with interest? 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained a sum of Rs.30,000/- as HBA on 15.07.1980 (Annexure-A) and the petitioner was required to repay the said HBA at the rate of Rs.222/- p.m. in 135 installments. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005. On his retirement, petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits are settled. After a long period of retirement of the petitioner, under impugned Communication dated 22.02.2024, the petitioner is informed to repay a sum of Rs.1,09,258/- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2954 WP No. 12185 of 2024 which being the principal amount of HBA at Rs.6,804/- and interest at Rs.1,02,724/-. The action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to pay the above stated amount is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. 8. On retirement of the petitioner, his pensionary benefits are settled and at the time of settlement of petitioner’s pensionary benefits, the respondents had obtained No Due Certificate from all the authorities. Unless No Due Certificate is received, the respondents- authorities would not have settled the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 9. Moreover, dues which are directed to be paid relate to HBA. Rules for granting HBA itself provides for recovery or consequences for breach of conditions. When the Rules relating to HBA itself provides for recovery or consequence for non-payment, the respondents ought to have proceeded in accordance with the said Rules/contract. The respondents could not have effected recovery from the pensionary benefits that too balance of HBA. Further, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2954 WP No. 12185 of 2024 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v/s RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has made it abundantly 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 recorded above, the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Annexure-E communication bearing No.A.C.T.17/1997-98 dated 22.02.2024 is quashed. (iii) If any amount is recovered from the pension or pensionary benefits of the petitioner towards HBA, the same shall be refunded within three months, from the date of uploading the order on the official website of High Court of Karnataka. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11