- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 8966 OF 2024 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING A-WING SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ALL INDIA RADIO (AIR), AKASHVANI BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (ENG) SUPER POWER TRANSMITTEER, AIR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE 560064. 4. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER ALL INDIA RADIO, KAMARAJAR SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600004. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024 AND: SHRI VENUGOPAL K C S/O LATE R.C.NAIR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC RTD. PRIVATE SECRETARY, S.P.T. AIR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, RESIDING AT MIG-80, 707, CHS, 2ND LANE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560064. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT, IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2023 ANNEXURE-A MADE IN OA No. 170/00419/2020 BY THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND DISMISS THE OA No. 170/00419/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The Union of India and its concerned officers are aggrieved by the Order dated 17.03.2023 in O.A. No.170/00419/2020 with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Branch, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by this order dated 17.03.2023, has directed the petitioners to release/refund the amount of Rs.4,34,700/- to the respondent in an expedited manner but within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of its order. 2. The indisputable facts are that the respondent who entered service as 'a Stenographer Grade-III' on 24.04.1982 has retired from service with effect from 30.04.2019. The respondent is admitted to different financial upgrades, but a sum of Rs.4,34,700/- is deducted from his retiral benefits on the ground that he was not entitled to Grade Pay of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024 Rs.4,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and that he would be eligible for such Grade Pay with effect from 24.04.2012. The Tribunal, considering the respondent's grievance that his representation for release of the amount withheld has not been considered, has directed release of the afore amount referring to the decision of the Apex Court in 'State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih [White Washer] and Others1'. 3. Sri Jayakara Shetty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the different principles enunciated by the Apex Court in paragraphs 18[i] and 18[ii], submits that the Tribunal could not have relied upon these paragraphs because indisputably the respondent was not in the Grade of Class-III or Class-IV and the recovery is of the excess payment made while settling the recovery dues. The learned counsel also submits that with writ petitions in 1 [2015] 4 SCC 334 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024 similar circumstances being dismissed, the Union has filed a Special Leave Petitions with the Apex Court, which are pending consideration. 4. This Court must, in addressing the petitioners' grievance, observe that the Tribunal's decision is not just based on the exposition by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case [supra], but also its decision in 'Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Others'2. The Apex Court in this decision has reiterated that there cannot be any recovery of excess payment when such payment is not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee or when excess payment is made by the employer applying wrong principles for calculating the pay/allowance or based on a particular interpretation of Rule/order which may later found to be erroneous. 5. This Court must observe that this principle squarely to the present case because there 2 2022 SCC Online SC 536 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024 is no allegation of fraud against the respondent and the alleged recovery is because of the Authorities understanding that the respondent has been admitted to Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 when he was entitled to such Grade Pay only with effect from 24.04.2012. The Tribunal has indeed referred to the principles enunciated by the Apex Court's decision in Rafiq Masih's case [supra], but the ultimate decision rests on the afore principles reiterated by the Apex Court in Thomas Daniel's case [supra]. As such, this Court does not find any reason to interference. Hence, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-