1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.3952 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.R.CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001.
IN THIS APPEAL REPRESENTED
BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
(ADMIN & HR)
BESCOM, BENGALURU.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELECTRICAL)
BESCOM, RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.L.RAMANNA
SON OF LAKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2
RETIRED STATION MECHANIC GRADE-1
BESCOM
RESIDING AT NO.9/9-1
24TH MAIN, 'E' CROSS
PIPELINE ROAD, J.C.NAGAR
KURUBARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 086.
2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: SHAILENDRA M.R. ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SMT:RASHMI JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15.7.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.605 OF 2018 (S-RES) AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITIONS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The brief facts of the case are that, the first respondent-writ petitioner was initially appointed as Helper
- a Group-D post with BESCOM and subsequently he was 3 promoted as Station Mechanic Grade-II i.e., in the cadre of Group-'C'. It is stated that respondent No.1 attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.01.2017. While settling his retirement benefits, an amount of Rs.1,58,999/- was deducted on 25.04.2017 which was assailed by respondent No.1 by filing the writ petition. Respondent No.1 herein filed Writ Petition No.605 of 2018 (S-RES) impugning Annexure-B dated 25.04.2017. He contended that the said deduction was illegal and the same could not have been deducted without notice. After considering the material on record, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of respondent No.1 and directed the appellants to refund the amount already recovered, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order along with interest at 8% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred by BESCOM and another.
2. We have heard Sri.Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned Counsel for the 4 appellants; Sri.M.R.Shailendra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. The admitted facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 herein was working as Station Mechanic Grade-II - Group 'C' employee and an amount of Rs.1,58,999/- was deducted from his retirement benefits on the ground that the said amount was paid in excess due to wrong fixation of the pay scale during the year 2004, when his pay was revised. It is stated that no notice was issued to respondent No.1 regarding excess payment and for recovery of the same. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [AIR 2015 SC 1267], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized few situations where recoveries from the employee was held to be impermissible in law. The first such instance is recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and IV service (or Group-'C' and 'D' service). The second instance is 5 recovery from the retired employee who is due to retirement within one year of the order of recovery.
4. In the present case, the admitted facts are that, respondent No.1 was working as Group-'C' employee and he retired on 31.01.2017 and the disputed amount was deducted from his retirement benefits. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court consisting of Nagarathna J., and Sanjay Gowda J., in Writ Appeal No.3955 of 2019 (S-RES) vide judgment dated 08.10.2020 considered a similar situation and the writ appeal was dismissed relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.3955 of 2019 dated 08.10.2020, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 6
Consequently, IA.2 of 2019 filed for stay is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-