- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 1446 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: V MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA NO 22, A, 1ST MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS, MANJUNATHANAGAR BANGALORE - 560079 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE, KPTCL KAVERI BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560009 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F AND C) CORPORATE OFFICE Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED K R CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560001 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) TL AND SS DIVISION KPTCL PEENYA BANGALORE - 560058 …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS. VISHRUTI VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD 08.12.2017 RECOVERING RS.2,99,955/- OUT OF THE/TERMINAL BENEFITS/DCRG AMOUNT PAID VIDE ANNX-A. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND A SUM OF RS.2,99,955/- TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 18 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT AS PER THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DTD 04.01.2018 VIDE ANNX-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ****** - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayer: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the official Memorandum vide No.KPTCL.EEE.SRS. F6.4348-49 dated 8th Dec 2017 recovering Rs.2,99,955/- out of the/terminal benefits/DCRG Amount paid vide 'Annexure A'. ii. Consequently, issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.2,99,955/- to the petitioner along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment as per the pension payment order vide No.BKP 547/dated 4.1.2018 vide 'Annexure-G'. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner served about 35 years and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2017, without any adverse remarks and the petitioner submitted all the required documents for settlement of his pensionary benefits well in time without any delay. It is contended that the respondents had issued an official Memorandum dated 08.12.2017 to recover ₹2,99,955/- towards alleged excess salary amount paid with effect from 01.04.1993 to 31.10.2017, out of the pension/retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. There was no enquiry initiated during the entire service period of the petitioner. The pensionary benefits settled by making a recovery of ₹2,99,955/- on 04.01.2018 without any reasons for the alleged excess salary payments with effect from 1993 to 2017 from the retirement benefits. The action of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 respondents in recovering the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner is against the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in AIR 2015 SC 1267. Hence, the deduction made by the respondents is illegal and impermissible under the law for Group-C and Group- D employees from the retirement benefits. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a statement of objections. It is contended that the Karnataka Electricity Board vide order dated 26.04.1994 approved the revision of pay scales which came into effect from 01.04.1993. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was to get a revised pay of ₹1,820/- with effect from 01.04.1993. It is contended that the petitioner was wrongly given an increment of ₹60/- when the increment ought to have been given on 01.04.1994. Due to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 additional increment that was incorrectly given to the petitioner, up to his retirement in 2017, the petitioner wrongly benefited by way of excess salary which is being paid to him. The respondents have rightly deducted the amount from the retirement benefits. The action of the respondents is just and proper and in accordance with law. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in drawing the salary. It is the respondents who have paid the amount to the petitioner and the petitioner has not played any fraud on the respondents while drawing the salary. The respondents have deducted the said amount only after retirement. He placed a reliance on the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP No.22948 of 2017 disposed of on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 09.11.2020. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to oversight, the excess amount has been paid to the petitioner for which he was not entitled. The action of the respondents in deducting the said amount is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. There is no dispute that the petitioner was working as a Group-C employee. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2017. While issuing the pension authorization, the respondent, vide Annexure-A dated 08.12.2017, directed to recover the amount of ₹ 2,99,955/- from the petitioner, out of the terminal benefits/DCRG amount. It is the case of the respondents that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 petitioner's pay was wrongly fixed and the petitioner was wrongly given an increment of ₹60/-. His pay was increased from ₹1,820/- to ₹1,880/-. The said increment ought to have been given from 01.04.1994, and not from the date, due to the additional increment, that was incorrectly given to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has served for more than 35 years. Even assuming the petitioner's pay was wrongly fixed, the respondents have not taken any action against the petitioner from 01.04.1993, till he retired from service. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih, (referred supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 6 which reads as follows: 6. In Sahib Ram Verma's case, (1995 AIR SCW 1780) (supra), this Court once again held that although the appellant therein did not possess the required educational qualification, yet the Principal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 granting him the relaxation, had paid his salary on the revised pay scale. This Court further observed that this was not on account of mis-representation made by the appellant but by a mistake committed by the Principal. In a fact situation of that nature, the Court was pleased to observe that the amount already paid to the appellant need not be recovered. In the words of the Court: "Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which appellant cannot be held to be fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 till date may not be recovered from the appellant." (emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the conclusion extracted herein above, it will be endeavour, to lay down the parameters of the fact, situations, wherein employees, who are beneficiaries of a wrongful monetary gain at the hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the same. In my considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to an employee merely on the account of the fact that he was not necessary to the mistake committed by the employer, or merely because the employee did not furnish any factual incorrect information, on the basis where the employer committed the mistake of paying the employee more than what was rightfully due to him, or for that matter merely because the excessive payment was made to the employee, in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation at the behest of the employee. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 12. Admittedly, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has played a fraud or misrepresented for fixing the salary. Admittedly, the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafia Masih (referred supra) and also order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Moinuddin vs. The Managing Director, Corporate office, Bangalore, BESCOM and others, wherein the co-ordinate judge has set aside the similar order. The petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the said order on the ground of parity. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order vide Annexure A, is hereby set aside. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46492 WP No. 1446 of 2022 iii. The respondents are directed to refund the said amount of ₹2,99,955/-, if recovered from the petitioner with interest at the rate of 5% per annum within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV