IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.2333 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY, MANGALAGANGOTRI, KONAJE, MANGALURU-574 199. MANGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE FINANCE OFFICER, MANGALURU UNIVERSITY, MANGALAGANGOTRI, KONAJE, MANGALURU-574 199. MANGALURU DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE) AND DR. HANUMA NAYAK, SON OF LATE PUTTA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN HISTORY, MANGALURU UNIVERSITY, MANGALAGANGOTRI, KONAJE, MANGALORE-574 199. ...RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/07/2018 PASSED IN W.P.Nos.18493/2017 [S-RES] BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18493/2017, by which the petition was allowed, the respondents are in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 17.3.2017 communication/ order bearing No.MU/29/EST(1)/2011-12/W.P and order dated 15.3.2017 bearing No.MU/Fin/Ha4/2016-17/2335 and for a direction to the respondents to pay all consequential benefits consequent upon quashing the orders. The petitioner is working as professor in the Department of History in the Bangalore University. Aggrieved by the orders of recovery of alleged excess salary for the period from 01.06.2007 to 30.11.2008, is before this Court in the instant writ petition. It is stated that the writ petitioner was appointed in the respondent – University on 17.07.1994, as lecturer. He was promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer on 05.10.1999. The petitioner is stated to have passed Ph.D. Degree in the year 2001 and he was promoted as a Reader on 03.11.2004 under Career Advancement Scheme. Thereafter the petitioner sought for further Career Advancement which was granted under order dated 24.03.2007. The said order dated 24.03.2007 was the subject matter of writ petition Nos.29055 – 29056 of 2009. The petitioner had also sought for promotion which was declined, hence challenging the same, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.40358 of 2011. Both the above writ petitions were heard together and disposed off by a common order dated 30.05.2013. This Court in its order dated 24.03.2007 directed the University to pass orders after hearing all the parties concerned and observed that till fresh orders are passed not to withdraw any monetary benefits extended to the petitioner. The petitioner states that without hearing him, the University passed orders dated 15.03.2017 and 21.03.2017 (17.03.2017) directing recovery of a sum of Rs.3,43,432/- stating that the same is excess salary paid on revision of UGC Pay Scale to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge by order under appeal allowed the writ petition and quashed order dated 15.03.2017. While quashing the order, the learned Single Judge has observed that the University had already taken a decision that the monetary benefit extended to the petitioner is not recoverable under Annexure-F dated 04.09.2013. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the respondents therein are in appeal.
3. Heard the Learned counsel for the appellant – University. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant – University would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in allowing the writ petition and in coming to the conclusion that the University had already taken a decision not to recover the monetary benefits from the petitioner. It is contended that the appellant – University had paid excess amount to the petitioner towards arrears of UGC Pay Scale, though he was not entitled for the same. It is also contended that the petitioner requested the University to deduct the excess amount paid to him in equal installments from out of his pension. Thus prays for allowing the appeal.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material on record, we are of the view, that the learned Single Judge has passed an equitable order which is neither perverse nor erroneous. The impugned order dated 15.03.2017 would indicate that the petitioner was paid excess salary for the period from 01.06.2007 to 30.11.2008, while making payment of arrears of pay in the revised UGC pay scale, hence, directed to recover a sum of Rs.3,43,432/-. Under Annexure-F dated 04.09.2013 in pursuance to the direction of this Court dated 30.05.2013 in writ petition No.40358 of 2011, the University in pursuance to the decision of the Syndicate dated 24.08.2013 had ordered as follows :-
“It is ordered not to recover the monetary benefits with regard to the promotion extended to Dr. Hanuma Naik, Associate Professor, Department of History, considering his past service at Pre-University College.”
This Court in the writ petition referred to above, while directing the University to pass fresh order after hearing the parties concerned had observed that the University shall not withdraw any monetary benefits extended to the petitioner in view of the order dated 24.03.2007 till final decision is taken. But under Annexure – H which is under challenge, the appellant – University without assigning any reason and without issuing any notice has order recovery. The University by its order dated 4.9.2013 vide Annexure- F, as extracted above had taken a decision not to recover the amount from the petitioner. The said decision was backed by the decision of the Syndicate. No material is produced to indicate the withdrawal of the Syndicate’s decision dated 24.08.2013 to recover the amount under the impugned order. It is the case of the appellant – University that excess amount is paid to the petitioner by mistake. It is not the case of the appellant – University that the petitioner has taken excess salary by mis- representation. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the appellants have not made out any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT: KHV