Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shri Shivashankargouda S/O ... on 25 July, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10524-DB
WA No.100280 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100280 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by ...APPELLANTS
VINAYAKA B V (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SHRI SHIVASHANKARGOUDA
S/O TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SDA,
R/O. H.NO.64, WARD NO.10,
GADDANKERI CROSS, POST. BAGALKOT,
TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOT 587102.
2. THE PRINCIPAL OF BVVS POLYTECHNICAL COLLEGE
BAGALKOT, PIN CODE 587101.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10524-DB
WA No.100280 of 2024
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED. 13-09-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.105188/2022 (S-RES) AND
DISMISS THE PETITION WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE S.G.PANDIT) This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 13.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.105188/2022, whereby the writ petition of respondent No.1 herein was allowed quashing recovery under order dated 10.02.2022 with a direction to refund the recovered amount with interest at 6% per annum.
2. Heard Sri.M.M.Khannur, learned AGA for the appellants and perused writ appeal papers.
3. Learned AGA would submit that respondent No.1- petitioner was working as Typist-cum-Second Division Assistant in respondent No.2-Institution having been appointed on 25.03.1985 and retired from service on attaining the age of -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10524-DB WA No.100280 of 2024 superannuation on 31.05.2021. It is the case of the appellants that the petitioner was granted certain increments on 25.01.2001 and he was paid excess pay during the period from 2001 to 2007 which he was not entitled to. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1-petitioner has executed an affidavit agreeing/consenting to recover the excess pay of Rs.5,47,807/- out of the DCRG/pensionary benefits. It is submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for increment in the year 2001. The excess payment of salary is made during 2001 to 2007 and the excess paid salary was ordered to be recovered from the pensionary benefit of the respondent No.1-petitioner. Thus, learned AGA justifies the action of the appellants-respondents.
4. Having heard the learned AGA and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, we are of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned learned Single Judge's order quashing the recovery.
5. Respondent No.1, the petitioner before the learned Single Judge retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021. Respondent No.1-petitioner was working in respondent No.2-Institution as Typist-cum- -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10524-DB WA No.100280 of 2024 Second Division Assistant. It is also admitted fact that in the year 2001, the petitioner was granted increment for which the petitioner was not entitled to. The appellant-respondent authorities passed order dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-L) in which the petitioner's entitlement for pension and pensionary benefit was determined and in the same order it was ordered to recover a sum of Rs.5,47,807/- from the petitioner's pensionary benefit on the ground that the petitioner is paid excess salary during the period 2001 to 2007. The action of the appellants-respondents is wholly arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice. No notice whatsoever issued to the petitioner before passing order of recovery and moreover, it is seen that the appellants-respondent authorities have failed to determine the amount after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Though it is the case of the appellants-respondent authorities that excess payment was paid to the petitioner during the year from 2001 to 2007, no action is taken against the petitioner till his retirement in the year 2021.
6. The petitioner belongs to Group-C Cadre. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10524-DB WA No.100280 of 2024 Masih1 on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance, makes it clear that no recovery order could be issued to the retired officials that too belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services i.e.Group-C and Group-D services. Such recovery from retired employees that too belonging to Group-C and Group-D would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary.
7. Learned AGA placed reliance on the affidavit executed by respondent No.1-petitioner consenting to recovery of sum of Rs.5,47,807/- from his pensionary benefits. The said affidavit is dated 10.02.2022. The impugned order is also dated 10.02.2022. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2021. For nearly one year the petitioner's pensionary benefits was not settled. In that circumstance, the petitioner had no choice but to give such unconscionable affidavit. Such an affidavit taken by the appellants-respondent authorities to settle pensionary benefits of the petitioner is nothing but exploitation and harassment to the pensioners. There is no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly, stands rejected. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10524-DB WA No.100280 of 2024
8. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, six weeks' time is granted to the appellant-State Government to comply the order under appeal dated 13.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.105188/2022.
9. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and are disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7