Karnataka High Court
Mangalore Refinery And ... vs Sri P P Udpadhya on 12 November, 2021
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.A. NO.1143 OF 2021 (S-RES)
IN
W.P.No.47642 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,
KUTHETHOOR POST, VIA KATILPALLA
MANGALURU 575 030
REP BY ITS GM(HR)
MR. GIRISH K. RAO.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W
MR. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. P.P. UPADHYA
S/O SRI. P.Y. UPADHYA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
401, ABIMAN PALACE
OPP: CANARA URVA HIGH SCHOOL
MANNUGUDDA
MANGALORE 575 003.
2. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONAL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
2
NEW DELHI 110 006
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE CASE
W.P. NO. 47642/2018 (S-RES) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2021 PASSED IN THE SAID CASE
AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE W.P. NO.
47642/2018 (S-RES) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER
RELIEFS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel for the
appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
In this intra Court appeal preferred under Section 4 of
the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellant has
assailed the validity of the order dated 13.07.2021 by which
the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 has been
allowed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are
that the appellant is a public sector undertaking. The
respondent No.1 is an employee of the appellant who was
appointed as Director (Technical) on 30.09.2010. In terms of
condition No.1.8.3 contained in the letter of appointment
dated 09.08.2011, the respondent No.1 was entitled to a
residential house. Thereupon, the lease was executed in
favour of the respondent No.1 on 25.08.2015. It appears
that an action was sought to be initiated against the
respondent No.1 on the ground that there was some
discrepancy between the house rent allowance and self lease
amount claimed by the respondent No.1. After the
respondent No.1 superannuated, self-lease amount and
difference in house rent allowance was sought to be
recovered by respondent No.1. Thereafter, the respondent
No.1 filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by an
order dated 30.07.2021, has allowed the writ petition
preferred by the respondent No.1. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is wholly erroneous
and is contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on
record.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant. It is pertinent to note that
the claim for self-lease as set up by respondent No.1 was
approved by the Committee constituted by the appellant.
The amount which was paid to the respondent No.1 was
approved by the Committee. The learned Single Judge, by
placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
'STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAFIQ MASIH' (2015) 4 SCC
334 recorded the conclusion that the recovery cannot be
made from the retired employee in the peculiar facts of the
case that too when conscious decision was taken by the
Committee to pay the amount to the respondent No.1. We
do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending
interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration
and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
