- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 13931 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MR. M.L. MUJAWAR S/O LATE LADLE SAB AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.MYG 2-273 KALYANGIRI, 8TH CROSS, NEAR KUVEMPU CIRCLE, MYSURU – 570 019 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HRD AND ADM) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560 009. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER ( A AND HR) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., NO.29, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE HINAKAL, MYSURU – 570 017. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (A AND HR) HESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECL) O AND M CIRCLE, HESCOM, VIJAYAPURA. 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECL) O AND M CIRCLE , Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 CHAMARAJANAGAR, KODAGU CESCOM, MYSORE. 6. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER THE CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., N R MOHALLA DIVISION MYSURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.C. SHANMUKKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R6, SMT. RAKSHITHA.D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1, R4 AND R5 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. A.EM(V)/ ULENI/ LAYAA/SISA/17- 18/43/44-46 DATED 05.02.2018 ISSUED BY R2, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18.07.2004 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H, REPRESENTATION DATED 24.03.2021, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND REPRESENTATION DATED 04.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND DIRECT TO REPAY THE DEDUCTED AMOUNT WITH INTEREST DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.07.2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND GRANT ADDITIONAL INCREMENT FOR HAVING SEVERED IN THE SAME CADRE FOR 22 YEARS WITHOUT PROMOTION AND TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,89,731/- (RECOVERED THE PETITIONER IS ELIGIBLE AND ENTITLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL INCREMENTS AS PER REG.36(ci) OF BESR ISSUED BY THE BOARD. 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 Petitioner, a retired Junior Personal Assistant of the respondent-CHESCOM is before this Court questioning Annexure-J, O.M., bearing No.CEA(«)/G¯É¤/¯ÉC/¹¸À/17- 18/4344-46 dated 05.02.2018 by which, fourth respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.2,38,152/- alleged to be excess pay paid to the petitioner and petitioner has also sought for consideration of his representations dated 18.07.2004, 24.03.2021 and 04.02.2022 (Annexures-H, K and L respectively) for sanction of additional increment for having served in the same cadre for 22 years without promotion. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Kaleemullah Shariff for petitioner. There is no representation for the respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent-CHESCOM as Typist on 29.12.1980. Subsequently he was promoted and at the time of his retirement on 31.08.2017, he was working as Junior Personnel Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequent to his retirement, Annexure-J, O.M., dated 05.02.2018 is passed alleging that the petitioner was paid excess pay and ordered to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 recover a sum of Rs.2,38,152/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the recovery from a retired employee that too belonging to Group-C and D officials would be unreasonable and iniquitous in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v/s RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER)1. Learned counsel would also submit that no notice whatsoever is issued to the petitioner before ordering recovery and he further submits that no action taken for recovery during the petitioner’s service period. Thus, learned counsel would submit that recovery is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner has served in the same cadre for more than 22 years and in terms of the order dated 26.12.2002 (Annexure-D) of the first respondent, the petitioner would be entitled for one additional increment. In that regard, the petitioner had submitted representations which are yet to be 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 considered. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. No statement of objections are filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. The petitioner who was working as Junior Personal Assistant in the respondent-CHESCOM retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2017. Subsequent to his retirement, Annexure-J, O.M., dated 05.02.2018 is passed directing recovery of a sum of Rs.2,38,152/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. The impugned O.M., would not indicate issuance of any notice to the petitioner before passing such recovery order. It is also seen that no action is taken or initiated while the petitioner was in service for recovery, if any, excess pay is paid to the petitioner. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAFIQ MASIH (supra) has held that the recovery from a retired Group-C and D employee or who would be retiring within - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 one year shall be iniquitous and unreasonable. At paragraph 18, it has held as follows: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 8. In the instant case, admittedly, no action is taken for recovery of alleged excess salary from the petitioner during his service. No notice is issued before passing impugned O.M., dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure-J). In the above circumstances, Annexure-J requires interference. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is continued in the same post for more than 20 years and in terms of Annexure-D, order dated 26.04.2002 of the first respondent, petitioner is entitled for one additional - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 increment. In that regard, petitioner submitted representations dated 18.07.2004, 24.03.2021 and 04.02.2022 (Annexures-H, K and L respectively). It would be appropriate for the respondents to consider the said representations within reasonable time and respondents have legal obligation to consider the said representations in the light of the order dated 26.02.2002 (Annexure-D) of the first respondent. Hence, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Annexure-J, O.M., bearing No.CEA(«)/G¯É¤/¯ÉC/¹¸À/17-18/4344-46 dated 05.02.2018 is quashed. c) The respondents are directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,38,152/- recovered form the terminal benefits of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7990 WP No. 13931 of 2022 d) The respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 18.07.2004, 24.03.2021 and 04.02.2022 (Annexures-H, K and L respectively) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, in the light of Annexure-D, order dated 26.12.2002. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46