- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4859 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI M G NARSIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM) NO.1, SUB DIVISION, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 R/AT NO.55, 11TH MAIN, KAMAKSHIPALYA, MARUTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHAILENDRA M. R., ADV.) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) BESCOM, RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION, Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 of 2022 RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJEEV B. L., ADV. FOR R1-R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY THE ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 10.02.2021(ANNEXURE-J) PASSED BY R3 AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REPAY THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,30,596/- RECOVERED FROM THE RETRIAL BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE MONETARY BENEFITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Though the matter is listed for orders on I.A, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner, retired Assistant of the respondent- BESCOM is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/gÁ«/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À(¹)/¹¸À1/747780 dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure-J) with a prayer to direct the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 of 2022 respondents to repay a sum of Rs.1,30,596/-, recovered from the retiral benefits/pensionary benefits. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shailendra.M.R., for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service as Assistant on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016 and on the same day, O.M. dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure-C) was issued to the petitioner informing that by inadvertence, career advancement increment was granted to the petitioner and it was ordered to recover a sum of Rs.1,30,596/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no notice was issued before directing the recovery and moreover, he submits that no action was taken by the respondents while the petitioner was in service. Further, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 of 2022 OTHERS v/s RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER)1 and prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev for respondents would submit that petitioner was granted one career advancement increment in the year 2010 for which, he was not entitled. It was noticed only when the petitioner was due to retire. Hence, it was ordered for recovery in a sum of Rs.1,30,596/-. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had submitted an undertaking on 28.03.2016 consenting to recover the excess pay paid to the petitioner during his service. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner cannot contend that recovery is arbitrary. 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 writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 of 2022 “Whether the respondents justified in ordering recovery on the date of petitioner’s retirement?” 7. The answer to the above point would be in the Negative and the action of the respondents in ordering recovery on the date of retirement of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances is wholly arbitrary for the following reasons: Admittedly, petitioner was granted one career advancement increment under O.M. dated 18.12.2010 (Annexure-A). The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016. On the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e., 31.03.2016, Annexure-C, communication was issued to the petitioner stating that by inadvertently, career advancement increment was granted and directed to recover a sum of Rs.1,30,596/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. No notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before directing recovery which would result in civil consequences. When the recovery results in civil consequences, minimum - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 of 2022 requirement is to issue at least a show cause notice. The action of the respondents is in total violation of principles of natural justice. However, the petitioner has not challenged the re-fixation of his pay. But, the petitioner is before this Court only challenging the recovery. 8. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner submitted undertaking that he would be liable to refund the amount, if he has received any excess pay would not merit any consideration. The said undertaking is dated 28.03.2016, three days prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner. At the time of retirement, a retired employee is bound to give such undertaking when he is asked to give such undertaking, without having any option, but to see that the pensionary benefits are settled. The said consent letter said to have been submitted by the petitioner cannot be held against the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondents have not taken any action for more than six years when the petitioner was in service. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 of 2022 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAFIQ MASIH (supra) has held that the recovery from a retired employee or who is retiring within one year that too belonging to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 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.” 9. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Annexure-J endorsement bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/gÁ«/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À(¹)/¹¸À1/747780 dated 10.02.2021 are quashed. c) Respondents are directed to repay a sum of Rs.1,30,596/- recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8145 WP No. 4859 of 2022 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., till it is paid. d) Time for compliance: Three months from today. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13