IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO WRIT PETITION NO.9287/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (PRIMARY SCHOOL) EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, SACHIVALAYA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR-571 511.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 512. (BY SRI.D.NAGARAJ, AGA) AND:
...PETITIONERS SRI. GIRIAPPA H.G. S/O. GIRIAPPA, AGED 59 YEARS, WORKING AS EDUCATION CO-ORDINATOR (PRIMARY) O/O BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK-562 160, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.8771/2014 DTD:16.12.2015 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD:16.12.2015 IN APPLICATION NO.8771/2014 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the application by quashing the recovery of the amount already paid for erroneous fixation of the payscale.
2. We may record that the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab And Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) And Others reported at 2015 (4) SCC 334, wherein the view taken is that the recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service cannot be made if it is on account of erroneous fixation of the payscale.
3. As the Tribunal has followed the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, we do not find any case is made out for interference.
4. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JT/-