- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1180 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATH N, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELEC.), O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, ZONAL SERVICE STATION, RAJAJINAGAR, C-1 SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 010, R/AT NO.2, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVARAJ N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, K.R.CIRCLE, CORPORATE OFFICE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER/DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HRD), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, K.R.CIRCLE, CORPORATE OFFICE, BANGALORE - 560 001. R Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, MALLESHWARAM DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS, PERTAINING TO THE CASE AND TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. KANIHIM(V)/MAV/LE/SALE/HESA(C)/3066-67 DATED 21.01.2022 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST, ARBITRARY, MALAFIDE, UNREASONABLE AND GROSSLY VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following prayers: “a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned Order bearing No. KaNiHim(V)/MaV/Le/SaLe/HeSa(C)/3066-67 dated 21.01.2022 marked at Annexure-B issued by the 3rd respondent as the same is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable and grossly violative of principles of natural justice; b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pay Rs. 2,81,887/- along with 18% interest p.a., to meet the ends of justice and; c) Issue any such orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.” 2. Heard Sri.Devaraj N, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Girija Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Lineman on 01.11.1987 and was promoted as a Lineman in the year 1991. He retires on attaining the age of - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 superannuation on 30.04.2025. While fixing pension of the petitioner by the pension payment order, an amount of Rs.2,81,887/- was recovered on the score that erroneous pay was granted to the petitioner, not yesterday but about 15 years ago. It is this that is called in question by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing to the petitioner would reiterate that the annual increment was granted to the petitioner not on any fraud or misrepresentation at the hands of the petitioner, but alleged error on the part of the respondents. He would submit that if there is no fraud or misrepresentation, it cannot be said that the recovery from the pension should be permitted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents though would put up vehement opposition, would submit that the recovery from a retired employee cannot be made unless there is fraud or misrepresentation at the hands of the petitioner. 6. In the light of the said circumstance, the only issue that falls for consideration is whether recovery of the aforesaid - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 amount could be made from the hands of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that there was neither fraud or misrepresentation on his side. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of JOGESWAR SAHOO v. DISTRICT JUDGE, CUTTACK1, while relying on the judgment in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAFIQ MASIH2 and a plethora of judgments, holds as follows: “ …. …. …. 9. This Court has consistently taken the view that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. It is held that such relief against the recovery is not because of any right of the employee but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employee from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. 10. In Thomas Daniel [Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536], this Court has held thus in paras 10, 11, 12 and 13: 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724 2 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 “10. In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18] this Court restrained recovery of payment which was given under the upgraded pay scale on account of wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned, without any misrepresentation on part of the employees. It was held thus: “5. 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 the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.” 11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India2 this Court considered an identical question as under: “27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 Regional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]): (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery. 29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in-service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of the circular dated 7-6-1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11-9-2001. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made.” 12. In Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar3 excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants-teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held thus: “59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 that the Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” 13. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)4 wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus: “8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. xxxxxxxxx 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 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.” (Emphasis supplied) - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment observes that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. Further, the Apex Court in RAFIQ MASIH supra observes five instances where recovery from employees is not permissible. Clause (2) deals with retired employees or employees who are to retire within a year from the order of recovery. 7. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed as there is neither fraud or misrepresentation alleged against the said petitioner for the said amount that is recovered from the pension of the petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Petition is allowed. [II] The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,81,887/- along with interest at the rate of - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023822026 NC: 2026:KHC:53363 WP No. 1180 of 2026 6% per annum, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7