- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29866 WP No. 28976 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28976 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: K.M. MUNIYAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT LINEMAN R/A NO. 51, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT CHANNENAHALLI GATE TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIRECTOR (A AND HR ) KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN 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 NEAR MALLIGE HOSPITAL BANGALORE 560 001. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29866 WP No. 28976 of 2023 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, O & M, MALLESHWARAM DIVISION 19, 13TH CROSS ROAD BANGALORE 560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNE GOWDA C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/ªÀÄ«/¯É/¸À¯É/EJF/4369-70 DATED 31/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the Official Memorandum dated 31.10.2017 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-C whereby an amount of Rs.2,07,276/- is ordered to be deducted from the DCRG amount payable to the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29866 WP No. 28976 of 2023 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Lineman in the year 1983. Later, he retired from service on 30.11.2017 as Assistant Lineman. Just one month before the date of his retirement, the impugned Official Memorandum dated 31.10.2017 has been issued by respondent No.4 whereby an amount of Rs.2,07,276/- has been ordered to be deducted from the DCRG amount payable to the petitioner on the ground that the said amount has been paid excess to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-C is passed without disclosing any reason and respondents have deducted Rs.2,07,276/- from the DCRG amount payable to the petitioner. He further contended that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. The petitioner is a Group-C employee. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. And etc. v. Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher) etc., (2015 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29866 WP No. 28976 of 2023 SCC 4 334) there is a clear embargo on the recovery to be made from the retirement benefits of Group-C and D employees. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the averments made in the statement of objection, particularly, paragraph-6, which reads thus: “The petitioner was sanctioned 25/30 years Carrier Advancement vide OM No.DGM/AGM/F&C/M(F&C)/EAG 5490, dated 12-11-2008 and SEE/BCN/DCA/AO/SA/7008- 10, dated 07-11-2013 as per Annexures-R-1 and 2 respectively. Since the petitioner had foregone promotion Carrier Advancement sanctioned for 25/30 was to be withdrawn and sanctioned for 27/32 years as per order No.KPTCL/B-16/5816/82-83, dated 02-11-2007 as per Annexure-R-3. Hence, the Carrier Advancement for 25 years was withdrawn vide OM No. EE/MD/AAO/EAG/2565, dated 31-07-2017 and Carrier Advancement sanctioned for 30 years was withdrawn vide ON.No.SE(E)/BC(N) DCA/AO/AAO/SA-1/17-18/3161-64, dated 17-08-2017 as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29866 WP No. 28976 of 2023 per Annexures-R-4 & R-5 respectively. Carrier Advancement was sanctioned for 27/32 years and his pay was re-fixed vide OM.No.EEE/MD/AO/EAG/3246-47 and 3248, as per Annexures-R-6 & 7 respectively, both dated 07-09-2017 from 01-04-2008 to 01-04-2017 as a result, his pay as on 01-04-2017 was revised from 24,940/- to Rs.24,320/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Lineman in the year 1983 and thereafter, he retired from service on 30.11.2017. The respondent No.4 has issued the impugned Official Memorandum vide Annexure-C and ordered for deduction of Rs.2,07,276/- from the DCRG amount payable to the petitioner on the ground that during the service of the petitioner, the respondents have paid excess amount to the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29866 WP No. 28976 of 2023 Hence, the respondents have deducted the said amount from the DCRG amount payable to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is a Group-C employee, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), there is a clear embargo on the recovery to be made from the retirement benefits payable to Group-C and D employees. Paragraph-12 of the said judgment is relevant and same is extracted hereinbelow: 12. 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 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29866 WP No. 28976 of 2023 (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. 7. In view of the above, the impugned Official Memorandum issued by the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-C is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The Official Memorandum dated 31.10.2017 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-C, is hereby quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29866 WP No. 28976 of 2023 c) Respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,07,276/-, which is already deducted from the DCRG amount payable to the petitioner with interest at 6% p.a., within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55