Karnataka High Court
Shri. Shivashankargouda S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069
WP No. 101779 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 101779 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHIVASHANKARGOUDA
S/O. TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED SDA,
R/O.H.NO.64, WARD NO.10,
GADDANKERI CROSS,
POST.BAGALKOT,
TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VEENA HEGDE &
SMT. ANNESAHEB SHALAGAR, ADVOCATES)
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by VISHAL
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.07 11:53:41
+0530
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
OF COLLEGE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069
WP No. 101779 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE PRL. OF BVVS POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
BAGALKOT - 587 101.
5. ACCONTANT GENERAL (A ND E)
AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREAMTH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
AUTHORITIES TO PAY THE INTEREST AS ORDERED BY THIS HON
BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 105188 OF 2022 DATED
13.09.2023 ANNEXURE - A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069
WP No. 101779 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayer.
"1. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the
respondent authorities to pay the interest as ordered
by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition
No.105188/2022 dated 13.09.2023 vide Annexure -
A in the interest of justice.
2. Any other reliefs as such deemed fit by
this Honb'le Court."
2. The petitioner was before this Court in Writ Petition
No.105188 of 2022. This comes to be allowed by setting aside
the impugned action therein by the following order:
"8. The Apex Court has laid down 5 Postulates
when recovery can be made on excess payment being
made to employees. The case at hand would clearly cover
Postulates (i), (iii) and (iv) of those Postulates. Therefore,
the recovery that is now sought to be made from the
hands of the petitioner is completely contrary to law and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069
HC-KAR
would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Rafiq (supra).
9. The submission of the learned AGA that the
petitioner himself has given an affidavit of undertaking for
recovery of the amount and that is a license for such
recovery is noted only to be rejected, as it is
fundamentally flawed. An undertaking taken from an
employee to give up terminal benefits or statutory
benefits is an undertaking that is contrary to public policy.
It is an unconscionable agreement. It would amount to
an agreement between the mighty employer and an
employee, who wanted to get pension, and was asked to
sign on dotted lines, which by no stretch of imagination
can become a license for the State to recover the amount
from its employee.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the following
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The Order dated 10.02.2022 bearing No.DTE 34
TBS 2021, Bengaluru, passed by 3rd respondent
stands quashed.
iii. The amount that is recovered/withheld/forfeited
from the pension of the petitioner shall be
repaid/refunded to the petitioner within eight
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069
HC-KAR
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order along with interest at 6% per annum from
the date it was to be paid, till the date, it would be
paid.
iv. In the event, the amount is not paid within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order, the petitioner shall become entitled to
interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date
of its payment."
3. The order passed was unequivocal that the petition
was allowed with grant of 6% interest per annum from the date
it was paid till the date it would be paid. In the event it would
not be paid within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of the order, the petitioner was declared to become entitled to
18% interest per annum. The amount was admittedly not paid
within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
On a specious plea, that the State has preferred a writ appeal in
Writ Appeal No.100280 of 2024. The writ appeal comes to be
dismissed on 25.07.2024 by affirming the order passed by this
Court supra. Even then the amount was not paid. The petitioner
was constrained to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court
in CCC No.100096 of 2024. After issuance of notice in the
contempt, an undertaking was submitted before the Contempt
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069
HC-KAR
Bench that they would comply with the order. It is only then, 6
weeks' time was granted and the order stood complied. In all the
jugglery of dates, both the petitioner and the respondent forgot
about the interest and therefore, the subject petition has sprung
again.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the amount with interest has not been paid and admittedly the
amount was not paid within 8 weeks. Therefore, interest at 18%
must be paid from the date it fell due till the date of payment.
5. The learned HCGP would put up vehement opposition
to grant of any interest contending that before the Division
Bench nor before the Contempt Court, the petitioners made any
hue and cry about grant of interest. Therefore, no interest was
paid. The petitioner has accepted the amount in the contempt
proceedings without any demur. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to any interest whatsoever.
6. The Learned HCGP would seek dismissal of the
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069
HC-KAR
7. In the teeth of the afore-narrated facts, what would
unmistakably emerge is, the amount that was paid to the
petitioner ought to have been paid along with interest, as the
direction No.3 was clear that the amount was to be refunded
with interest at 6% within 8 weeks. It is not paid within 8 weeks.
Before the Division Bench there is no modification of the
direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner thus
becomes entitled to interest at 18% per annum as was directed.
8. In the light of it being public money, I deem it
appropriate to restrict the interest at 12% per annum from the
date it fell due till the date it reached the doors of the petitioner.
The said interest amount at 12% shall be paid within 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not, it shall
now carry 24% from the date it fell due till the date of payment.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RSH/CT-ASC
