IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.605 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.L.RAMANNA S/O.LAKKANNA AGEDA ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED STATION MECHANIC GRADE-I BESCOM, R/AT NO.9/9-1, 24TH MAIN, ‘E’ CROSS PIPELINE ROAD, J.C.NAGAR KURUBARAHALLI BANGALORE-560 086 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHAILENDRA M.R., ADV.) AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 009 2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) BESCOM, RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 (BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R-1 & R-2 R-3 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY THE ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER/LETTER DATED 25.04.2017 AT ANNEXURE-B AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REPAY THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,58,999/- RECOVERED FROM THE RETIRAL BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE MONETARY BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for quashing Annexure-B dated 25.4.2017.
2. Respondents have deducted a sum of Rs.1,58,999/- from the retiral benefits on the score that the aforesaid amount has been paid to the petitioner in excess, while fixing of pay scale in the year 2004. The petitioner was in the cadre of Mechanic Grade-I, he has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.1.2017. The respondents proceeded to settle petitioner’s retiral benefits on 25.4.2017 while deducting a sum of Rs.1,58,999/-
without assigning any reasons. Thus, petitioner has presented this petition contending that such deduction is without notice and since he is in the cadre of Group – C question of recovery may not arise in view latest decision in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Rafiq Masib (White Washer) reported in AIR 2015 SC 1267.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of the petitioner and supported the impugned action. Due to wrong fixation of the pay of the petitioner in the year 2004 revision of his pay has been taken note of as on the date of retirement. Consequently, deduction of Rs.1,58,999/- has been ordered. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It was further contended that excess payment made by the respondents is an error which has been rectified. Hence, no interference is called for.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Question for consideration in the present petition is ‘Whether order dated 25.4.2017 is in accordance with law or not?’ 6. Undisputed facts are that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.1.2017 while holding the post of Station Mechanic Grade - I. Respondents have noticed certain errors committed in the year 2004 while fixation of petitioner’s pay i.e. sought to be rectified on 25.4.2017 and proceeded to deduct a sum of Rs.1,58,999/-. The impugned action is without notice to the petitioner, so also, there is no refixation of pay of the petitioner from 2004. Further, at what point of time, such anomaly has occurred are not forthcoming. It is a civil consequences as petitioner’s certain monetary benefits is being deducted from retiral benefits. In such an event, notice is a mandatory on the score of non issue of notice before deduction of amount, impugned order is liable to be set aside. That apart, as on the date of retirement petitioner was holding the post of Group-C. Consequently, question of deduction does not arise in view of State of Punjab V/s. Rafiq Masib (White Washer) reported in AIR 2015 SC 1267. In view of these facts and circumstances, Annexure-B dated 25.4.2017 is set aside.
7. Writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order along with interest at 8% per annum.
Sd/- JUDGE BS