- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17927 WP No. 109460 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 109460 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: VISHWANATH M AGE 54 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD R/AT CHANNABASAVESHVAR NAGAR, DSIT. DHARWAD 580003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17927 WP No. 109460 of 2025 3. INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, R/BY SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER, OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, (G AND SSA), P.B.NO. 5398, BENGALURU 560001. 4. THE KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, R/BY REGISTRAR, DHARWAD 580003. 5. FINANCE DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY FINANCE OFFICER, DHARWAD 580003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTIONS, QUASHING THE COMMON IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ORDER DATED 08.05.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5, ORDERING RECOVERY OF ALLEGED DA PAID IN EXCESS FOR THE PERIOD 2016-2019 DURING UGC 6TH PAY SCALE SALARY DISBURSEMENT, BY IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. KA.VI.VI./HA.VI./VETANA/2024-25/162. DATED 08.05.2025, ISSUED TO PETITIONER PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17927 WP No. 109460 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner calls in question certain recoveries made against the fixation of dearness allowance, which, according to the respondent-University were in excess. 2. The petitioner is said to be serving in the University. The re-fixation and recovery are said to have been ordered without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He seeks to place reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Co- Ordinate Benches of this Court in the following cases: (i) Writ Petition No.17509 of 2022 disposed on 04.01.2023 and (ii) Writ Petition No.102276 of 2023 along with connected matters disposed on 18.04.2024. 3. The issue is whether recovery or re-fixation of pay could have been effected by the University without issuance of any notice to these petitioners. 4. It is trite that any order that would entail civil consequences cannot be passed without, at the outset, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17927 WP No. 109460 of 2025 the case at hand, there has been no notice issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned action. On this sole score that the orders are in violation of principles of natural justice entailing civil consequences, the unmistakable conclusion would be the obliteration of the orders, with a liberty to the University to issue notice and take appropriate action in accordance with law. While doing so, the University shall bear in mind the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1, which 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 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 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17927 WP No. 109460 of 2025 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.” 5. Therefore, in the light of the issue being answered by the Co-Ordinate Benches and the admitted fact that the orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the petition stands allowed in part. The impugned order stands obliterated. The matters are remitted back to the hands of the University to issue notice to the petitioner, seek his reply, consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH / CT: ASC LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 310