- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 23494 OF 2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: MOHANA RAO K A S/O SRI ANANDA RAO K.P. AGED 65 YEARS, RETIRED AS SENIOR ACCOUNTANT O /O GENERAL MANAGER (PA AND F) KARNATAKA CIRCLE, 3RD FLOOR, GPO BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001 RESIDING AT NO 246, AISHVARYA, 11TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, VIVEKANANDANAGARA, HOSKOTE - 562 114 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RADHAKRISHNA HOLLA A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PA AND F), KARNATAKA CIRCLE, 3RD FLOOR, GPO BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 DEPARTMENT POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V.RAJINI FOR SRI. B PRAMOD, CGC) 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 OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2023 PASSED BY THE CAT IN OA/170/01287/2019, ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE OA/170/01287/2019 GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER DEEMED FIT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 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 S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “CAT”) is before this Court, questioning the order dated 11.07.2023 in OA/170/01287/2019, wherein petitioner’s request to restore the last pay drawn at Rs.66,000/- p.m., and consequential re- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 fixation of pension and other benefits and to refund the recovered amount of Rs.2,87,845/-, is rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner who was working as Senior Accountant in the second respondent-Department retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that as on the date of retirement, his last pay drawn was Rs.66,000/- p.m. However, it is submitted that by notification dated 08.06.2018 (Annexure-A2), sanction was accorded for payment of Rs.10,98,141/- being retirement gratuity payable on superannuation and the said communication would also indicate recovery of a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- dues to the Credit Co-operative Society as well as Rs.2,87,845/- towards over payment of pay and allowances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Radhakrishna Holla would submit that from the retirement gratuity, a sum of Rs.2,87,845/- was deducted stating that the same is over payment of salary and allowances. Further, he would submit that the last pay drawn by the petitioner at Rs.66,000/-p.m., was reduced to Rs.62,200/- p.m. stating that he was drawing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 pay of Rs.66,000/- p.m., which he was not entitled to, in view of wrong sanction of MACP-2 and MACP-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled for MACP-2 and MACP-3 during his service and if a notice was issued to him prior to recovery, he would have justified the sanction of MACP-2 and MACP-3. However, he submits that without notice, pay of the petitioner was reduced as well as without any show-cause notice, a sum of Rs.2,87,845/- was deducted from his retirement gratuity. Learned counsel would submit that the CAT proceeded to dismiss the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has taken undue benefit of his position and he got himself sanctioned MACP-2 and MACP-3. Further, the CAT observed that dues to the Government could be recovered under Rule 71 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1971 (for short “1971 Rules”). Questioning the order of the CAT as well as recovery made along with reduction in pay, petitioner is before this Court. 4. On behalf of the respondents, statement of objections is filed contending that the respondent was working as Superintendent in the Establishment Section and he was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 dealing with sanction of MACP. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioner was fully aware that his request for grant of MACP-2 and MACP-3 benefits was rejected earlier and suppressing the earlier rejection of his request to grant MACPs, he made one more representation and he himself dealt with the matter and got sanctioned MACP-2 and MACP-3. Learned counsel Smt.V.Rajini appearing for Sri.B.Pramod, learned CGC would submit that respondents are justified in reducing the pay as well as in recovering a sum of Rs.2,87,845/- from petitioner’s retirement gratuity. Learned counsel would also submit that Rule 71 of 1971 Rules permits the respondents to recover any dues out of his pensionary benefits. 5. This Court, by order dated 04.02.2026 directed learned CGC for respondents to get instructions as to whether before effecting recovery or reducing the last pay drawn, notice was issued to the petitioner or not. Pursuant to the said direction, one Smt.Chaitra A.M., the Deputy Director, Office of the General Manager (PAF), Karnataka Circle, Bangalore has filed an affidavit dated 24.02.2026. In the affidavit, except stating - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 about issuance or non-issuance of show-cause notice, all other contentions which are part of statement of objections have been reiterated. Learned counsel for the respondents Smt.Rajini referring to document No.1 enclosed to the affidavit would submit that recovery of excess pay has been intimated to the petitioner under Communication dated 28.05.2018 prior to his retirement and submits that, that would suffice issuance of show-cause notice. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to whether the respondents- authorities were required to issue show-cause notice before reducing pay and before recovering a sum of Rs.2,87,845/- in the facts and circumstances of the case? 7. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: The petitioner was working as Senior Accountant in the second respondent-Postal Department and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 Subsequent to his retirement, on 08.06.2018 in terms of Annexure-A2, the petitioner was intimated that he would be entitled for Rs.10,98,141/- being the amount of retirement gratuity and further it was intimated that a sum of Rs.4,27,845/- would be deducted from pensionary benefits, out of which, Rs.2,87,845/- was deducted towards over payment of pay and allowances. 8. Any recovery from a government servant or reduction of pay would result in civil consequences to such government servant. In the instant case, when the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, he was drawing last pay at Rs.66,000/- p.m. However, the respondents reduced the last pay of the petitioner from Rs.66,000/- to Rs.62,200/- p.m. and also communicated the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,87,845/- towards over payment of pay and allowances. Both the action of reducing pay and recovery is without notice to the petitioner. The respondents have not communicated to the petitioner even how they have arrived at a sum of Rs.2,87,845/- and how the petitioner is not entitled for MACP-2 or MACP-3. When once the benefit OF MACP-2 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 MACP-3 are granted to the petitioner, before withdrawing such benefit, the respondents ought to have issued notice as to why the benefit granted to the petitioner should not be withdrawn. 9. The affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 by one Smt.Chaitra, Deputy Director dated 24.02.2026 would not indicate issuance of any notice or show-cause notice before effecting recovery or before reducing the last pay drawn by the petitioner or before withdrawing MACP-2 or MACP-3. 10. The contention of respondents that Rule 71 of 1971 Rules would permit recovery and since the petitioner has full knowledge that his request for MACP-2 and MACP-3 was rejected earlier, subsequently he made representation and got sanctioned MACP-2 and MACP-3 and hence, the recovery is justified, cannot be accepted. Though the respondents have the right to recover any amount due from the government servant at the time of retirement, the same shall be exercised in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 11. This Court, while considering an identical fact situation in the case of M.N.MUJAWAR v/s UNION OF INDIA AND - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 OTHERS reported in MANU/KA/1740/2024, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in BHAGWAN SHUKLA v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 6 SCC 154 at paragraphs 7 and 8 has held as follows: “7. Admittedly, any recovery order without notice would result in civil consequences. In the instant case, ACP-I and ACP-II were granted on 09.08.1999 and 23.10.2007. Petitioner was due to retire on 31.03.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. Few days prior to his retirement, respondent authorities under Annexure-A5 dated 29.03.2019 directed recovery of a sum of Rs.1,86,443/- stating that the said amount is excess pay and allowances. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner giving an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter of recovery of the amount. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner had no opportunity to have his say in the matter of determination of amount by the respondents as excess pay and allowances needs to be accepted. In the absence of issuance of notice, the action of the respondents in issuing the order of recovery has resulted in civil consequences. In Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 India and Others MANU/SC/0504/1994:INSC:299: (1994)6 SCC 154, , the Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that unless notice is issued to determine the amount said to be excess payment, the authorities would not be in a position to recover the said amount. Relevant portion of the above decision at paragraph-3 reads as follows: “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs.190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs.181 p.m. from Rs.190 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18-12-1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a3 flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25-7-1991, which was impugned - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17-9-1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25-7-1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs.190 to Rs.181 w.e.f. 18-12-1970.” 8. It was necessary for the respondents to issue show cause to the petitioner indicating why he was not entitled for ACP-I and II in the year 1999 and 2007 respectively and as to why recovery should not be effected. When an action of the state or its Authority results in civil consequences prior notice would be necessary.” 12. Respectfully following the above decisions as well as taking into consideration the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner before reducing his pay and before recovering a sum of Rs.2,87,845/- towards over payment of pay and allowances, We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner would be entitled for the relief sought and the respondents are required to issue notice before taking any decision which would result in civil consequences to the retired government servant. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27948-DB WP No. 23494 of 2023 13. Hence, the following order: Order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the CAT in OA/170/01287/2019 is quashed. Consequently, action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioner from Rs.66,000/- p.m. to Rs.62,200/- as well as withdrawal of MACP-2 and MACP-3 and consequential recovery are declared as violative of principles of natural justice. The respondents are directed to issue appropriate notice in that regard, receive explanation from the petitioner and thereafter take appropriate decision, in accordance with law. To the above extent, the writ petition stands allowed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MPK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24