- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 21429 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI C H RANGARAJU S/O HONNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS JUNIOR ENGINEER (EI) S-14, SUB DIVISION BESCOM, 1ST PHASE J P NAGARA, BANGALORE. NOW R/AT C H RANGARAJU NO.8C, TEJAS 2ND CROSS GUNDAMMA LAYOUT JARAGARA HALLI BANGALORE 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRACHAR, ADV. FOR SRI NAGARAJU M., ADV. (VC)) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE K R CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATE OFFICE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 CORPORATE OFFICE K R CIRCLE BANGALORE -560 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) JAYANAGARA DIVISION BANSHANKARI 2ND STAGE THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED BANGALORE- 560 050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.YATHISH S., ADV. FOR SMT. ASHWIN G RAJ, ADV. FOR R1-R3 (VC)) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO RESPONDENT TO DRAW AND PAY THE WITHHELD AMOUNT OF RS.2,45,253/- WITH INTEREST AT 18 PERCENT ANNUM WITH COSTS. 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 Engineer (Electrical) of respondent-BESCOM is before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the withheld amount of Rs.2,45,253/- out of DCRG with interest at 18% p.a. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Raghavendrachar for Sri.Nagaraju.M., learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Yathish.S., for Sri.Ashwin.G. Raj, learned - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 through video conference. Perused the entire writ petition papers including the statement of objections filed by respondents. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Raghavendrachar would submit that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2021. While settling is pensionary benefits, a sum of Rs.2,45,253/- was withheld on account of wrong fixation of pay by one increment. Further, learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Annexure-R1, O.M., dated 22.0.2021 wherein the pay of the petitioner was revised to his disadvantage subsequent to his retirement, without even issuing a notice to that effect. Learned counsel would submit that on the ground that the petitioner’s pay was fixed wrongly on his promotion as Meter Reader on 24.02.2010, the respondent- BESCOM re-fixed the pay of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2009 to 01.01.2021. In that process, it ordered for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,45,253/- which was deducted from the DCRG of the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the period of petitioner’s service, no action was taken to recover the said amount and thereafter when the recovery was ordered under O.M., dated 22.04.2021, no notice whatsoever was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the re-fixation and recovery would result in civil consequences, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity. Further, learned counsel Sri.Raghavendrachar placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v/s RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER)1 would submit that no recovery would be permissible from the petitioner i.e., Group-C official subsequent to his retirement. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Yathish.S., appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 pay of the petitioner was re-fixed since the petitioner was not entitled for one increment in the year 2009 which was wrongly granted. As the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed in terms of Annexure-R1, O.M. dated 22.04.2021, it has become necessary to recover a sum of Rs.2,45,253/- which was deducted from the petitioner’s terminal benefits. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had submitted an undertaking in terms of Annexure-R2 stating that he would be liable to refund the amount received if it is in excess. Thus, learned counsel would submit that in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, the petitioner is liable to refund excess pay received by him. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled for the relief as sought for. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 7. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2021. Under Annexure-R1, O.M., dated 22.04.2021, pay of the petitioner is revised to his disadvantage from 01.04.2009 till 01.01.2021. By virtue of re-fixation of pay of the petitioner to his disadvantage, recovery of a sum of Rs.2,45,253/- is ordered. Admittedly, no notice whatsoever is issued to the petitioner before passing O.M., dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure-R1). When the pay of an employee is to be re-fixed and recovery is to be effected, minimum requirement is to issue a show cause notice indicating reason for such re-fixation and recovery. In the instant case, no notice or opportunity is afforded to the petitioner before passing Annexure-R1 dated 22.04.2021. The action of the respondents is in total violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Admittedly, the revision of pay to the disadvantage of the petitioner is from 2009 onwards. The petitioner was in service till March-2021. The respondents - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 have not taken any action till re-fixation or recovery of pay of the petitioner during his service in the respondent- BESCOM. Admittedly, after retirement, Annexure-R1, O.M., dated 22.04.2021 is issued. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAFIQ MASIH (supra) has held that the recovery from a retired employee that too belonging to Group-C and D would be unreasonable and iniquitous. At paragraph 18, it h as 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). - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 (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. (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.” 10. This Court placing reliance on the decision of RAFIQ MASIH (supra) has quashed the recovery by respondent-BESCOM in W.P.No.22948/2017 dated 09.11.2020 and also in W.P.No.26154/2017 dated 16.09.2021. In the light of the above, action of the respondents in recovering a sum of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6968 WP No. 21429 of 2021 Rs.2,45,253/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner is unsustainable. Hence, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Writ of mandamus is issued petitioner directing the respondents to release a sum of Rs.2,45,253/- withheld from out of the terminal benefits of the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of retirement, up to the date of payment. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27