- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8386 WP No. 16570 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 16570 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: RAMU K., S/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR MECHANIC, BESCOM, N-4 SD, PEENYA DIVISION R/A 620, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN HEGGANAHALLI CROSS VISHWANEEDAM POST BANGALORE-560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIRECTOR(A AND HR) KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560 009. 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F & C) BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE, K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, O & M, NORTH CIRCLE, CRESCENT TOWER, CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELE) BESCOM, O & M, PEENYA DIVISION, Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8386 WP No. 16570 of 2023 PEENYA 3RD STAGE, NEAR UCO BANK, BANGALORE-560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YASH JOLPADKE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESHA T.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.EEE/PD/AO/AAO/SA/EA/1537 DTD 12.08.2020, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO REFUND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.1,88,440/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A., TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM 01.08.2020 AS PER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired Senior Mechanic of respondent- BESCOM is before this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India questioning correctness and legality of Official Memorandum dated 12.08.2020 at Annexure-C and also praying for a writ of mandamus to respondent No.4 to refund Rs.1,84,440/- deducted from terminal benefits with 6% interest p.a., from the date of retirement till it is paid. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri Srinivasa K., for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri Yash Jolpadke for respondents No.1 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8386 WP No. 16570 of 2023 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from the service as Senior Mechanic, after attaining superannuation on 31.07.2020. He submits that 15 days before his retirement under Official Memorandum dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure-B), respondent No.4 revised the pay of the petitioner from 2006 till 2020 to the disadvantage of the petitioner. He submits that before revision of pay, no notice, whatsoever, was issued to the petitioner. He submits that pursuant to the said revision, Annexure-C, impugned Official Memorandum dated 12.08.2020 was issued directing to recover a sum of Rs.1,84,440/- out of DCRG payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that such recovery is arbitrary, unreasonable and no such recovery could be effected from retired person in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that the petitioner was paid excess pay during his period of service between 2006 to 2020 and the same came to the knowledge of the respondents while petitioner's pension - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8386 WP No. 16570 of 2023 papers were attended to. He submits that person, who receives excess, is bound to refund the same. As the petitioner has received excess pay, respondents have ordered recovery. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal the entire writ petition papers, the only point that would arise for consideration is, "Whether respondents were justified in ordering recovery dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure-C) subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner?" 6. My answer to the above point would be negative for the following reasons: Petitioner was in service of respondent-BESCOM. On 03.06.2006, he was promoted as Mechanic Grade-II. On his promotion, his pay was fixed in the promoted post on 03.06.2006. Thereafter, during revision of pay scale, petitioner's pay was fixed according to the revised pay scale. The petitioner was also promoted as Senior Mechanic during January, 2020. As per Official Memorandum dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure-B), respondents revised and re-fixed the pay to the disadvantage of the petitioner and by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8386 WP No. 16570 of 2023 such revision, under Official Memorandum dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure-C) it was ordered to recover a sum of Rs.1,84,440/- towards excess salary paid to the petitioner from his DCRG. Revision of pay to the disadvantage of the petitioner and consequent recovery is without providing any opportunity to the petitioner and no notice, whatsoever, was issued to the petitioner before revision of his pay or before ordering recovery. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioner has not challenged revision of pay but has challenged only recovery. Since the recovery is without notice and that too after retirement of the petitioner, the same would be arbitrary and unreasonable. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has made it clear that no recovery could be effected from Group 'C' and 'D' employees subsequent to their retirement or from an employee, who is due to retire within one year. 8. Paragraph 18 of the said decision reads 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, 9 based on the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8386 WP No. 16570 of 2023 decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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." 9. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition must succeed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8386 WP No. 16570 of 2023 (ii) Official Memorandum bearing No.EEE/PD.Ao/AAO/SA/EA/1537 dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure-C) is quashed; (iii) Consequently, respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,88,440/- recovered from DCRG of the petitioner along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of retirement of the petitioner till it is paid; and (iv) Time for compliance is three months from today. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38