Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Yogendra K S on 28 February, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.21999/2021 (S-KSAT)
APPLICATION NO.1790/2019
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPT. OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGGA - 577201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENKATASATHYANARAYANA, HCGP.)
2
AND:
SRI YOGENDRA K S
S/O K SUBBARAYAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
CIVIL HEAD CONSTABLE-1551,
TIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION
R/AT KOLAVARA VILLAGE,
BASAVANNI POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577201
...RESPONDENT
APPLICATION NO.1816/2019
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
DEPT. OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGGA - 577201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENKATASATHYANARAYANA, HCGP.)
3
AND:
SRI SHIVARUDRAYYA A R
S/O RAJASHEKARAYYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
CIVIL HEAD CONSTABLE,
KARGAL POLICE STATION
SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT
R/AT 1ST CROSS, J P NAGAR,
NEAR KAGODU THIMMAPPA
RANGAMANDIRA, SAGAR,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577201.
...RESPONDENT
APPLICATION NO.5006/2019
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KOLAR GOLD FIELD,
KOLR - 563101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENKATASATHYANARAYANA, HCGP.)
AND:
SRI RAMESH KUMAR
S/O LATE ARULDAS
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
4
CIVIL HEAD CONSTABLE,
ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION,
KGF, BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRCT,
R/AT NO 292, ET BLOCK
OORGAM, KGF -563113.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO.1790/2019 C/W 1816/2019 AND 5006/2019
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. The Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms, Vidhana Soudha, and others are before this Court
in this writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated
11.11.2019 rendered in Application No. 1790/2019
connected with Application Nos.1816/2019 and 5006/2019.
The Tribunal after appreciating the facts has concluded that
the applicants/respondents herein have rendered services
with the Armed Forces over a period of 18-25 years and
post their discharge/retirement have been recruited as Civil
Police Constables against the ex-serviceman quota.
3. The dispute lies in a narrow compass and
pertains to fixation of the pay scale on the one hand and the
recovery of the sums alleged to have been paid in excess.
In so far as the first aspect of the matter the Tribunal has
taken a view and directed that matter could be re-done by
the concerned Superintendent of Police after looking into
the service particulars of the individuals. In that view of the
matter, we do not find any merit warranting interference at
our hands. In so far as the second aspect of the matter is
concerned, i.e., pertaining to recovery of the sums said to
have been paid in excess the Tribunal has placed reliance
on the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahib Rams case
(1995 supp(1) SCC 18. The Tribunal has held in para 10 of
its order as under:
"10. As regards the recovery of excess payments
made in past, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of SAHIB RAM cited supra by
the learned Counsel for the applicants are clearly applicable
in the context of these present cases since admittedly there
is no misrepresentation or fraud by the applicants at any
stage. The tenor of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment is
that recovery should not be resorted to after a long gap
where there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of
the applicants and the excess payment had resulted in past
due to wrong application or interpretation of any rule or
order. It has been held that such relief is granted not
because employee have any right but because the court
exercising its equity jurisdiction to avoid hardship to an
employee who is not at fault. Though Hon'ble Supreme
court had a slightly different view in the case of CHANDEY
PRASAD UNIYAL & OTHERS [Civil Appeal
No.5899/2012 decided on 17.08.2012], as per a
recent ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS vs. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE
WASHER) etc. [2005 AIR SCW 501] recovery is not
justified in the circumstances of the present cases."
4. The law with regard to recovery of sums paid in
excess has been held to be impermissible by the Apex Court
when it relates to certain class of employees and whether
the recovery is liable on account of any fraud practiced by
the employee or misrepresentation by the employee is also
well settled. The law in this regard holds the field even as
on today. In that view of the matter, we do not see any
merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed and the order of the Tribunal stands affirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ykl
CT-HR
