Karnataka High Court
C S Lokeshwara Rao vs The Director Hrd & Dev on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31386
WP No. 45870 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 45870 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
C.S. LOKESHWARA RAO
S/O. C.G. SEETHARAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECL)
T.A. & Q.C., BENGALURU
ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO.,
O AND M CIRCLE, TUMKUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. RAGHAVENDRACHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
HRD AND DEV
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPN. LTD., (KPTCL)
CORPORATE OFFICE,
Digitally CAUVERY BHAVAN,
signed by BENGALURU- 560 009.
SUMA
Location:
HIGH 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT
COURT OF ENGINEER (ELECL)
KARNATAKA O AND M CIRCLE,
BESCOM,TUMKUR-572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. V.N.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31386
WP No. 45870 of 2012
COMMUNICATION DATED 23.06.2009 BEARING
NO.ASST.ENGINEER(V)ULE.NI/LE.AA./SALE,AAR/KI.S.2/561-66 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUE OF WRIT OR CERTIORARI AND ISSUE
FURTHER DIRECTION TO RESTORE THE PETITIONER'S PAY AND
CONTINUE TO PAY OF THE PETITIONER WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION
OF PAY AND REFUND THE RECOVERED AMOUNT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23.06.2009
passed by the respondent No.2 directing recovery of a sum of
Rs.72,010/- from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner
has also sought for restoration of his pay without any reduction
and refund of the recovered amount.
2. The petitioner contends that he was working as an
Assistant Executive Engineer with the respondents. He
contends that his pay was revised during the year 1998 and his
pay was fixed on the basis of revised pay scale by granting an
increment for having passed executive higher examination. He
was also granted an additional increment under the Time
Bound Scheme and a regular increment. He contends that the
Chief Engineer intimated the respondent No.2 on 07.05.1999 to
NC: 2024:KHC:31386
refix the pay of the petitioner at Rs.7,800/- in the cadre of
Assistant Engineer. Unfortunately, without hearing the
petitioner, his pay was re-fixed on the ground that there was
an error in fixation of pay by notification dated 23.06.2009
which was addressed by the respondent No.2 to the Manager of
establishment of the respondent No.1. The petitioner's pay was
reduced from Rs.8,550/- to 8,300/- and a sum of Rs.72,010/-
was ordered to be recovered. The petitioner contends that he
was not heard in the matter before reducing his pay. However,
he submitted a representation dated 03.07.2009 requesting the
authorities not to recover the amount on the ground that there
was no fault on his part and that the recovery is barred by
limitation. The representation of the petitioner was rejected in
terms of the communication dated 05.06.2012. It is alleged
that the respondents have recovered a sum of Rs.72,010/-
based on the reduced pay. The petitioner is therefore, before
this Court challenging the reduction of his pay as well as
recovery of Rs.72,010/-.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
grounds urged in the writ petition and in support of his
contentions, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
NC: 2024:KHC:31386
Court of India in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Others
Vs. Union of India - 1994 SCC 521 as well as the judgment
of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20498/2003.
4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 who contend that the petitioner was drawing a
salary of Rs.2,510/- on 01.04.1997 and it was re-fixed at a
sum of Rs.2,610/- with effect from 01.04.1998 after granting
an annual increment. The petitioner passed the prescribed
examination for promotion and after passing the examination,
the petitioner had to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. Since
there was no vacant post of Assistant Engineer, he was granted
an increment. He contends that as per the Board Circular dated
24.06.1982, it was held that all those workmen who possessed
requisite qualification and were entitled to be promoted to the
next higher post, but could not be promoted due to want of
vacancies and who had completed 10 years of service in the
same cadre would be granted an additional increment. The
respondents contend that in the instant case, the petitioner had
completed 10 years of service and had also passed the
eligibility examination and therefore, his pay was fixed in the
next higher scale with effect from 06.04.1998, however, it is
NC: 2024:KHC:31386
contended that the next higher scale must have been given
after giving an increment in Junior Engineer Scale, but the
petitioner's scale was fixed as applicable to an Assistant
Engineer and thereafter, an additional increment was granted
to the petitioner. He contends that this mistake was noticed
while issuing pay slip when the petitioner was promoted as an
Assistant Executive Engineer. It is contended that the petitioner
himself had represented before the Secretary of the
respondents and requested for fixing the next higher scale of
pay with effect from 06.04.1998 at Rs.8,050/- per month which
is not permissible as he was to be fixed in the higher scale of
Rs.7,800/- as on 06.04.1998.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended
that the petitioner is still in service and therefore, the excess
payment made to the petitioner had to be recovered and was
accordingly recovered. He contends that the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma
referred super and the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.20498/2003 is applicable only in so far as
retired employees are concerned, as the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court had held that there
NC: 2024:KHC:31386
was no mistake on the part of retired employees in receiving a
higher pay and therefore, there was no justification to recover
it from such retired employees. He contends that the petitioner
is still in service and therefore, the respondents are entitled to
recover the excess pay given to the petitioner.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the
respondents.
7. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the
petitioner is not claiming that he was entitled to higher scale
but on the contrary, it is his case that excess pay that was
given to the petitioner was based on an incorrect revision of his
pay scale and that he was not responsible for such mistake. It
is also his contention that the revision of pay scale during the
year 1998-2000 could not have been recovered in the year
2009. However, it is to be noticed that the petitioner is still in
service and the excess pay is already recovered by the
respondents. So long as the petitioner is in the employment of
the respondents, any amount paid in excess is entitled to be
recovered by the respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:31386
8. In that view of the matter there is no error
committed by the respondents in recovering a sum of
Rs.72,010/- from the salary of the petitioner.
9. This writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
