Karnataka High Court
D C Ramesh vs The Managing Director on 19 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7194
WP No. 21963 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 21963 OF 2023 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
D C RAMESH
S/O LATE D.R. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A VIJALAPURA VILLAGE,
VIRUPAKSHA POST,
MULABAGILU TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563131
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560027
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Location: HIGH KSRTC
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KOLAR DIVISION
KOLAR - 563101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.KARASA/KOVI/
SIBBANDI.C-1/1291/2020-21 VIDE DIVISIONAL
ESTABLISHMENT ORDER BEARING NO.156/2020-21 (REVISION
OF PAY SCALE) DTD 11.08.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THIS
WP ISSUED BY THE ASST ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE
R-2 AND THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BERING NO.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7194
WP No. 21963 of 2023
KARASA/KOVI/SIBBANDI/C-1/1441/2020-21 DTD 26.08.2020
VIDE ANNX-E TO THIS WP ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:
"1. Issue a writ in the nature of writ of
certiorari by quashing the impugned Order bearing
No.KARASA/ KOVI/ SIBBANDI/ C-1/ 1291 /2020-21
vide Divisional Establishment Order bearing
No.156/2020-21 (revision of pay scale) dated
11/08/2020 vide Annexure-D to this writ petition
issued by the assistant administrative officer of the
second respondent and the impugned endorsement
bearing No. KARASA/ KOVI/ SIBBANDI/ C-
1/1441/2020-21 dated 26/08/2020 vide Annexure-E
to this writ petition issued by the second respondent
or
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of writ of
mandamus directing the second respondent to re-
pay the recovered amount of Rs.4,99,496/- to the
petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum from the date of recovery till the date of
payment under the facts and circumstances of the
case or
NC: 2024:KHC:7194
iii. Issue any appropriate writ, order/s or
directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to
grant by considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and an order as to costs to meet the ends
of justice and equity."
2. Heard Sri M.C. Basavaraju, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for
the respondents.
3. Petitioner was selected and appointed as a
Conductor in the respondent-Corporation; the second
respondent re-fixed the pay- scale of the petitioner by
reducing his basic pay from Rs.32,510/- to Rs.30,320/-,
respondent issued an endorsement to the petitioner
directing the petitioner to deposit the excess salary paid to
him and the petitioner has deposited Rs.4,99,496/-
towards excess salary to the second respondent and it is
brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent has
recovered a sum of Rs.4,99,496/- towards the excess
salary of the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:7194
4. Learned counsel on both sides submit that the
present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of
the apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and
others vs Rafiz Masih [White Washer] and others,
reported in (2015)4 SCC 334.
5. The apex Court, in the case in White Washer
supra, has laid down the law that any wrongful payment
made by the employee cannot be recovered and in Para-
18 of the judgment, observed as under:
"18. It is not possible to postulate all
situations of hardship which would govern
employees on the issue of recovery, where
payments have mistakenly been made by the
employer, in cess of their entitlement. Be that as it
may, based on the decisions referred to
hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference,
summarise the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to
Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and
Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or
the employees who are due to retire within one
year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the
excess payment has been made for a period in
NC: 2024:KHC:7194
excess of five years, before the order of recovery is
issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives
at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the
employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary
to such an extent, as would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employer's right to
recover."
In the light of the law declared by the apex
Court, the proposition of law that wrongful payment
made to an employee cannot be recovered by the
employer the same is to be reimbursed is no more
res integra and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the recovery made from the employee
needs to be refunded and accordingly, the
endorsement issued at Annexure - E needs to be set
aside. Accordingly, this Court passed the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:7194
ii. The impugned order at Annexure-E dated
26.08.2020 is hereby set aside.
iii. The respondent herein is directed to refund
the amount received from the petitioner to
the extent of Rs.4,99,496/-, and the said
amount to be paid by the respondent within
a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
iv. It is however made clear that the pay
fixation of the petitioner reducing his basic
pay from Rs.32,510/- to Rs.30,320/- stands
affirmed and it is needless to observe that
the pay fixation stands undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NV
