Karnataka High Court
Sri S Siddaraju vs The Managing Director on 29 October, 2024
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43656
WP No. 20556 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 20556 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S SIDDARAJU,
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELEC.),
O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.),
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED,
MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION,
MALLESHWARAM 13TH CROSS,
MARGASA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 003,
RESIDING AT NO. 1362,
BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE,
Digitally signed BDA LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK,
by VIJAYA P
Location: HIGH
KENGERI, BANGALORE NORTH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 062.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CAUVERI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43656
WP No. 20556 of 2024
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER/DIRECTOR
(ADMN AND HRD)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CAUVERI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.),
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED,
MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION
MALLESHWARAM 13TH CROSS,
MARGOSA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 003
4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F AND C)
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. KA.NI.HIM(V)/MAV/LE/
SALE/HISA(C) 1701-02 DTD 18.08.2022 MARKED AT ANNX-B
ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL UNJUST
ARBITRARY MALAFIDE UNREASONABLE AND GROSSLY
VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:43656
WP No. 20556 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner who is a retired Junior Engineer has filed
the present petition calling in question the correctness of
the order at Annexure-B whereby the respondent -
Corporation has directed for deduction of amount stated to
have been given in excess at the time the petitioner was
promoted on 01.04.2010.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that such excess
increment stated to have been given cannot be recovered
in light of the settled position of law of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) - (2015) 4 SCC 334. It is further
submitted that identical placed employee has called in
question the action of the respondent in seeking to recover
excess increment paid under identical circumstances and
this Court in W.P.No. 560/2024 has set aside such action
of recovery.
NC: 2024:KHC:43656
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the factual matrix and manner in which relief was
granted in W.P.No. 560/2024 may have to be followed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. It is not in dispute that the increment is stated
to have been paid at the time of promotion of the
petitioner by mistake and such recovery of excess has
been ordered in terms of the office order at Annexure-B.
6. In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) in terms of the
direction at Paragraph No.12(i), the Court has laid down
that the recovery would be impermissible where it relates
to amounts paid to Group 'C' posts as well. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner belongs to Group 'C' post. The
Coordinate Bench considering the case of identical
employee has disposed off the matter in W.P.No.
560/2024 on 21.03.2024 which requires to be followed.
NC: 2024:KHC:43656
The observations made in the said writ petition at
Paragraph No.6 onwards are as follows:
"6.The impugned recovery is liable to be quashed
and it is found unsustainable on two counts. The
impugned recovery is found to be too vague and
does not indicate either any anomaly or excess
payment to the petitioner. The impugned order
does not refer to any particular date, where
excess payments were made to the petitioner.
7. Be that as it may, the Co-ordinate Bench
placing reliance on the RAFIQ MASIH case, in an
identical case, has set-aside similar recoveries
and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to
pay recovery amount with interest at the rate of
6%. Since petitioner is identically placed, he is
also entitled for the relief in the light of the
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench."
7. Accordingly, taking note of the order of the
Co-ordinate Bench as well as the law laid down by the
Apex Court, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:43656
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-B dated
18.08.2022 is set aside.
(iii) The respondents are hereby directed to pay
sum of Rs.2,88,171/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of recovery till realization.
(iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VP
