- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101052 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ANANDRAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, A/W SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PIRAJI APTEKAR, S/O. MAHADEV APTEKAR, AGED ABOUT: 65 YEARS, RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O PEERANWADI-590014, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 2. SRI. SHIVAPPA TALAWAR, S/O. GADIGEPPA TALAWAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O PLOT NO. 101, DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001 3. SRI. DHANPAL PATIL, S/O. JINNAPPA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O BASAVAN KUDACHI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591124 4. SRI. SIDDAPPA KUDABALE, S/O. YAMANAPPA KUDABALE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O PLOT NO 3251, RAMATEERTHA NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590015 5. SRI RAMA DODDAMANI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. HONNAPPA DODDAMANI, RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O AMBEDKAR GALLI, KANABARGI-590015, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001 6. SRI BABU TIRAKANNAVAR, S/O. BASAPPA TIRAKANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O PLOT NO 21, BASAVA NAGAR, M K HUBLI-59118, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001 7. SRI MALLIKARJUN JAMBAGI, S/O. SHRIMANTAPPA JAMBAGI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O SHETGAR CHAWL, BAILHONGAL- 591102 TQ BAILHONGAL, DIST BELAGAVI 8. SRI KAREPPA JAKKAPPAGOL, S/O. JAKKAPPA JAKKAPAGOL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT, BELAGAVI-590019 TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI 9. SRI ANANT CHIKALIKAR, S/O. DAMODAR CHIKALIKAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O CTS NO 5057/30, HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590019, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI 10. SMT SAROJINI VEERANGOWDA PATIL, W/O. LATE VEERANGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS, HER HUSBAND WAS RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O C/O V N PATIL DUNDANATTI - 591344, AT POST BENCHINMARDI, TQ GOKAK DIST: BELAGAVI. 11. SMT ZAHEDA NAIK, W/O. AYUB NAIK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HER HUSBAND WAS RETIRED WORK INSPECTOR, R/O. SWAMINATH NAGAR, NEAR VACCINE DEPOT BELAGAVI-590006, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. UPADHYE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4, R6 AND R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN A.NO.11393- 11403/2022 AND DISMISS THE A.NO.NO.11393- 11403/2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PREMILINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE ORDER THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This writ petition is because of the refusal to consider the private respondents’ representation for reimbursement of amounts, which are admittedly paid in excess to them while in service. The private respondents, because of this refusal, have filed applications with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in application Nos.11393-11403/2022. The Tribunal has disposed of these applications on 18.12.2023 with opinion and directions as stated hereafter: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 "In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants have made out a case for our interference. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the representations filed by the applicants on 15.07.2022 and pass appropriate orders by taking into consideration the orders already passed by this Tribunal in A.Nos.5802 & 5803/2013 and in A.No.2864/2004 and to pass appropriate order regarding refunding the recovered amount to the applicants within a period of three months from the date receipt of certified copy of this order.” 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division, Belagavi, while considering the private respondents’ representations in the light of the directions by the Tribunal, has issued Endorsement dated 02.06.2024 essentially stating that the representation for repayment cannot be considered in view of the decision in WP Nos.35519-35550/2015 and other connected matters. These writ petitions are disposed of on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 10.10.2018. The private respondents have filed a complaint for initiation of contempt proceedings with the Tribunal asserting that this Endorsement is issued in deliberate disobedience of the directions issued in the application Nos.11393-11403/2022. 3. It is in these circumstances that the State has preferred this writ petition calling in question the Tribunal’s order dated 18.12.2023. When queried, Sri.Keshava Reddy, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the contempt proceedings are scheduled to be listed before the Tribunal tomorrow i.e., on 21.02.2025. This Court must observe that the Tribunal’s directions to consider the private respondents' representation in view of the orders in the earlier applications in Nos.5802 and 5803 of 2013 and another application in No.2864 of 2004 is in the light of the categorical exposition by the Hon’ble Apex Court that recovery by an employer of the excess payment on employees retirement will be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 impermissible if the recovery is from Class - 3 and Class - 4 services [Group - C and D service employees]. This decision in Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and Others1 is a reiteration of the earlier decisions in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih2. 4. Sri. Arvind D. Upddhye, the learned counsel for the private respondents, submits that the petitioners should have considered the representations not just in the light of this exposition by the Hon’ble Apex Court but also the indisputable facts that [i] similarly placed employees/their dependents have approached the Tribunal earlier, with the Tribunal directing refund of the amount paid in excess, and [ii] this decision is carried unsuccessfully up to the Hon’ble Apex Court with the State later refunding the amounts recovered from Group–C and D employees. 1 AIR 2022 SC 2153 2 2015(4) SCC 334 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 5. When Sri. Keshava Reddy is heard in the backdrop of these, this Court is not persuaded to opine that the Endorsements dated 02.06.2024 is justly passed, but the learned Additional Advocate General is indeed persuasive in contending that, given the circumstances, this Court may intervene and grant another opportunity for due consideration notwithstanding the endorsement dated 02.06.2024. As such, this Court must intervene to this limited extent but ensuring that the continuation of the contempt proceedings is not prejudiced. Hence, the following:- ORDER [A] The writ petition is allowed in part directing the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Sub-Division, Hukkeri, to reconsider the petitioners’ representations in the light of the circumstances stated - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 in this order notwithstanding the Endorsement dated 02.06.2024 and inform the outcome of such consideration to the private respondents within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [B] The further proceedings in contempt are deferred until such time, and if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the proceedings must be closed, it should be on the condition that the private respondents will be at liberty to seek revival, if there is cause for the same. [C] This Court has also examined whether it would be just and reasonable to impose cost but is - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3464-DB WP No. 101052 of 2025 of the view that this must also be an aspect that should be considered by the Tribunal, if either the contempt proceedings are to be continued post deferred or for revival. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/CT:VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9