- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6229 OF 2020 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI M C GOVINDAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKARAMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINER, (ELECTRICAL), BESCOM, R/AT NO.352, 7TH MAIN ROAD, I.T.I LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHAILENDRA M. R., ADV.) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., BESCOM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F AND C) BESCOM, K.R.CIRLCE, BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 4. THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER BESCOM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.R.CIRLCE, BANGALORE-560001. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), BESCOM, KENGERI DIVISION, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJEEV B. L., ADV. FOR R1-R5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.09.2019 (ANNX-E) AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE PAY BEFORE RE-FIXATION AND REPAY THE WITHHELD AMOUNT OF RS.3,64,664/- RECOVERED FROM THE RETIRAL BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE MONETARY BENEFITS, ALONG WITH INTEREST AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Petitioner, a retired Junior Engineer (Electrical), BESCOM is before this Court praying to quash the endorsement dated 24.09.2019 bearing No.ªÀÄÄ.¥Àæ.ªÀå (ºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ)/¦A/©¹-3/G¥ÀæªÀå/¸À¥ÀæªÀå/¸À-1/19-20/1616 (Annexure-E) wherein, the petitioner’s request to refund a sum of Rs.3,64,664/- recovered from his DCRG is rejected justifying the recovery. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to refund a sum of Rs.3,64,664/- recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner with interest. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.R.Shailendra for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev for respondent Nos1 to 5. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was a Junior Engineer (Electrical) at BESCOM and retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner’s pay was stepped up to that of his junior under - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 O.M. dated 23.06.2001 and he was paid the benefit accordingly. Few days before the petitioner’s retirement, under O.M. dated 23.07.2019 the benefit of step up of pay granted to the petitioner in the year 2001 was re-fixed and by another O.M. dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure-C), it was ordered to recover a sum of Rs.3,64,664/- from the DCRG of the petitioner. Based on the said order, a sum of Rs.3,64,664/- was recovered from the retiral benefit of the petitioner and his request to refund the same as it is impermissible to recover from a retired employee, under Communication at Annexure-E dated 24.07.2019, the petitioner’s request is rejected. 4. Learned counsel Sri.M.R.Shailendra would submit that no notice whatsoever was issued before the recovery and no enquiry was conducted to determine the amount which is ordered to be recovered. Learned counsel would submit that when the recovery results in civil consequences, minimum requirement is to issue at least a show cause notice. The action of the respondents in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 ordering recovery is in total violation of principles of natural justice. Further, learned counsel would submit that recovery was directed under O.M. dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure-E) i.e., 7 days before the petitioner’s retirement, which is unreasonable and unfair on the part of the respondent-BESCOM. Learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard, places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER)1. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev would submit that the petitioner was wrongly given benefit of step up of pay in the year 2001 which was rectified under O.M. dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure-B) and consequently recovery order at O.M. dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure-C). Learned counsel would submit that a person who receives excess pay is liable to refund the same. Hence, he justifies the action of the respondent- BESCOM and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 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, Whether the recovery order in the facts and circumstances justified from a retired employee? 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in respondent- BESCOM and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2019. Annexure-A, O.M. dated 23.06.2001 discloses that the petitioner was granted step up of pay and his pay was re-fixed. The said benefit was continued to be paid to the petitioner till 23.07.2019. Annexure-B – O.M., on which date step up of pay granted in the year 2001 was revised resulting in order of recovery of a sum of Rs.3,64,664/- by Annexure-C dated 24.07.2019. Admittedly, no notice whatsoever, is issued while re-fixing or withdrawing step up pay granted to the petitioner or at the time of ordering recovery. No enquiry - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 is conducted to determine the amount ordered to be recovered. Reduction in pay on re-fixation to the disadvantage of an employee requires minimum issuance of show cause notice asking the employee as to why such revision should not be effected. In the instant case, as the respondents have failed to issue show cause notice and to determine the amount ordered to be recovered, the recovery would be unsustainable. 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 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: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 (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. (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. It has become usual practice of the respondent- BESCOM to grant additional increments or step up the pay of its employees and to pay till they retire and at the time - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 of retirement, to revise the same and order for recovery of certain amount. Such practice is deprecated. In catena of cases relating to respondent, this Court has made it clear that such recovery from retiring employee is impermissible. Despite the same, it is noticed that this dubious method of paying and recovering is continued. It appears audit is not effective or audit unit also is in connivance with other officials. Such financial loss to the respondent shall have to be recovered from the officers who are responsible for such grant of wrong fixation of pay. In the above circumstances, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Annexure-E bearing No.ªÀÄÄ.¥Àæ.ªÀå (ºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ)/¦A/©¹-3/G¥ÀæªÀå/¸À¥ÀæªÀå/¸À-1/19-20/1616 dated 24.07.2019 as well as Annexure-C bearing No.PÁ.¤.EA(«)/PÉA«/¯É/£À.¯É/2019- 20/960-62 dated 24.07.2019 are quashed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6742 WP No. 6229 of 2020 c) Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,64,664/- recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary to Government, Department of Energy, Managing Director, KPTCL and BESCOM, for taking necessary action. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15