- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.103464 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI MOHAN S/O. NARAYAN EKBOTE, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O: H.NO.43, KUSUGAL ROAD, MADHURA CHETANA COLONY, HUBBALLI – 23, HUBBALLI TALUK, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S. N. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUBBALLI - 20, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PENSION CELL, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI – 580 024, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE WITHDRAWAL ORDER OF 15 YEAR TIME BOUND SCALE DATED 21.07.2012 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDERS BG NO’S. HDMC/15/ CAO/PENSION-CELL/12-13 DATED Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 29.09.2012 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- F SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DEDUCTIONS AND REDUCTION IN THE PENSION. ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RETURN THE DEDUCTED AMOUNT OF RS. 1,19,941/- AND TO REFIX THE PENSION OF PETITIONER AFTER RESTORING 15 YEAR TIME BOUND SCALE AS PER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 18.05.2023 AND DATED 6.3.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES -M, M1,M2 AND M3. PASS AN ORDER IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2011 MADE IN W.P.NO. 8282/2008 C/W 8278/2008 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS, ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- G AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 21.07.2012, by which, the Time Bound Scale that was granted to the petitioner, on completion of 15 years of service, is withdrawn and consequential changes in the pension has been affected. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 2. Heard Sri S.N. Rajendra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gurudev Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondents. 3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioner is appointed on 09.10.1972 as a Naka Officer in the Octroi Department on temporary basis. Later it transpires that, the service of the petitioner comes to be regularized. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the service rendered by the petitioner. During the service of petitioner, the Government notifies Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic Grant of Special Promotion to Senior Scale of Pay) Rules, 1991. The petitioner was extended the benefit in terms of the Rules on 02.12.1994. On 10.10.2000 it transpires that, the respondent-Corporation extended the said benefit to all employees including the petitioner. 4. Owing to certain audit objections, on 21.07.2012, long after the grant of the said Time Bound - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 Scale, the said scale comes to be withdrawn. The withdrawal resulted in a short payment in the pension. The petitioner did not challenge the same immediately, but has approached this Court after submitting a representation on 18.05.2023 and 06.03.2024. The representations were not considered. Therefore, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Time Bound Scale that was granted to the petitioner in the year 2000 is sought to be withdrawn in the year 2012 without even issuing a notice to him and the learned counsel further submits that the pension has been short paid and the recovery of Rs.1,19,941/- is deducted from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. He would therefore seek quashment of those orders and release of terminal benefits in its entirety. 6. Learned counsel Sri Gurudev Gachchinamath appearing for the respondent-Corporation would submit the orders challenged are of the year 2012. The petition is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 preferred in the year 2024, i.e., twelve years thereafter. The petitioner has kept quite for twelve years and knocked at the doors now. Therefore, even if he is to succeed in the position, he should not be awarded any interest, as claimed. In the light of the delay in approach, the counsel would submit that he is not entitled to any relief that he has sought for, as delay defeats equity is his emphatic submission. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The aforenarrated facts are not in dispute. The issue now lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was granted Time Bound Scale in terms of the aforesaid Rules on 02.12.1994. The said document which depict such grant reads as follows : “¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ZÁ°vÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ªÀÄÄA§qÀw ¯Á¨sÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À£ï 1994 gÀ 4£Éà ªÉÃvÀ£À DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ¥ÀjµÀPÀÈvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 1760 ªÉà ±Éæà 1190-2200 1-6-91 1800 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸Àé ZÁ 1-6-91 ªÀÄÄA, ¯Á¨sÀ, ªÉÃ, ±Éæà 1190-2200 1850 1-10-91 1900 1-10-92 2050 ¥À ªÉÃ, ±Éæà 1280-2300 1-7-93 2100 1-10-93 2150 1-10-94 £ÀA.HDC 364/GA1/94 D 2-12-94 PÀ«ÄµÀ£Àgï ¥ÀgÀªÁV” 9. The petitioner did enjoy the said benefit and the salary of the petitioner was reworked in accordance with the said benefit. It transpires that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, there arose an audit objection with regard to the grant of Time Bound Scale to the petitioner. It was said that he was not eligible for the said Time Bound Scale. Therefore, the Time Bound Scale that was granted in the year 1994 as continued in the year 2000 comes to be withdrawn by an order dated 21.07.2012. This is admittedly without issuance of any notice to the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 10. The issue now would be whether a benefit that is granted in the year 1994 could have been withdrawn on 21.07.2012, on the eve of retirement of the petitioner. The issue need not detain this Court for longer delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1 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. (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. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 (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.” 11. The Apex Court lays postulates of recovery, of amount that have been erroneously paid in the past. All the postulates that are laid down by the Apex Court would become applicable to the case at hand. The benefit that was granted in the year 1994 is sought to be withdrawn in the year 2012 that too without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the said action of withdrawal of the Time Bound Scale becomes unsustainable. The result of holding of the withdrawal of the Time Bound Scale being illegal would be that the petitioner would get become entitled to all the arrears of pension from 2012 till the date of its payment. The petitioner shall thus become entitled to the arrears of pension in its entirety to be calculated and paid from 21.07.2012 till the date of payment. 12. In the normal circumstance, this Court could have awarded interest. The petitioner has not approached - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 this Court immediately for an action that happens on 21.07.2012. Petition is preferred twelve years thereafter. The petition would be dismissed, if the procedure had been followed by the respondents in withdrawing the benefit. Since it is not, and that it runs foul of the judgment of the Apex Court, I have entertained the petition and granted the aforesaid relief, but without interest. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following : ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The orders dated 21.07.2012 and 29.09.2012, issued by the respondent No.2, vide Annexures-E and F, stand quashed. (iii) The amount that is deducted or recovered from the terminal benefits of the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3354 WP No. 103464 of 2024 (iv) The pension of the petitioner shall be reworked and arrears of pension from 31.09.2012 till the date of payment shall be complied within next eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20