Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Govindappa M.K

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024/21083/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had set aside recovery of excess pay drawn by the respondent over 14 years due to mistake. Applying the Rafiq Masih principle, the Court held recovery from a Class-C employee illegal and directed the refund. The Court dismissed the peti

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Time granted to comply with Tribunal: refund excess pay with 6% simple interest.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Govindappa… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34555-DB WP No. 21083 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 21083 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT CHICKMAGALURU-577 101

¶13

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BIRUR, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 116

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. GOVINDAPPA M.K. S/O K.V. KURUDAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED P.E., TEACHERS, G.H.P.S., BIDARE, BIRUR RANGE-577 116 CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT RESIDING AT JANATHA COLONY MATHIGATTA, KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:34555-DB WP No. 21083 of 2024

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN A.No.6204/2022 AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶27

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners.

¶28

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 19.07.2023, by which, the recovery made from the respondents herein was set aside by the Tribunal and direction was issued to refund the recovered amount with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of release of the amount.

¶29

We have heard the learned Additional Government

¶30

Advocate appearing for the petitioners.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34555-DB WP No. 21083 of 2024

¶32

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that

¶33

the respondent herein was appointed as Physical Education Teacher by Official Memorandum dated 24.01.1999. It is submitted that it was on giving rural weightage that the appointment was effected. Thereafter, pursuant to directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the select list was revised removing the rural weightage granted. Those persons who found place in the revised select list even without rural weightage were continued in service. However, in respect of persons who were continuing in service on the basis of their selection by award of rural weightage, on humanitarian consideration, the Government directed their re-appointment and continuance in service. However, it was specifically ordered that they would not be entitled for protection of pay or seniority on the basis of their earlier appointment. On their re-appointment they were to be placed at the minimum of the scale of pay attached to the post and would not be entitled to claim any protection of the pay or service benefits for reckoning the pay with effect from their date of initial appointment i.e., on 26.02.1999. However, it is submitted that by mistake, in the year 2007, the respondent was granted fixation of pay

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:34555-DB WP No. 21083 of 2024

¶36

taking note of his initial entry in service i.e., with effect from 26.02.1999. When the mistake was noticed, the communication which was impugned before the Tribunal was rendered by the competent authority directing a refixation of pay as well as recovery of the amounts wrongly drawn by the respondent.

¶37

It is submitted that respondent had approached the Tribunal filing the application with a delay of 244 days. The Tribunal had condoned the delay and had considered the contentions urged and had found that recovery from the respondent, who was a Class-C employee, that too after a lapse of nearly 14 years was illegal.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that fixation of pay granted to the respondent taking note of his initial entry of service in the year 1999 was per se illegal and incorrect in view of the fact that appointment was continued only on purely humanitarian grounds and it was specifically ordered by the Government that the pay would have to be refixed taking note of the date of reappointment on humanitarian grounds and at the minimum of the scale of pay.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34555-DB WP No. 21083 of 2024

¶40

However, instead of this, in the 2007, the pay was wrongly refixed which was corrected when the mistake was noticed. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the application itself was filed belatedly, the contentions ought not to have been considered by the Tribunal.

¶41

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the Tribunal has specifically considered the contentions of both parties in the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that in view of the fact that what was under challenge was an order passed in the year 2021 seeking to refix the pay fixed in the year 2007 and in view of the fact that impugned order also sought to recover the amounts wrongly paid, the cause of action was a continuing one. Thereafter, the Tribunal went on to consider the contentions of the parties and found that the refixation was effected after a considerable long period. The Tribunal therefore partly allowed the application setting aside the directions in Annexure - A7 which relates to recovery of the amounts from the respondent.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:34555-DB WP No. 21083 of 2024

¶44

We notice immediately that the refixation of pay has not been set at naught by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has only set aside the Annexure - A7 in as much as it relates to recovery of the amounts from the respondent. We are of the opinion that the question with regard to recovery from Class - C employees is covered against the petitioners by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501 .

¶45

In view of the fact that all that has been set aside by the Tribunal is the recovery made on the basis of the refixation, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely covers the issue on grounds of being recovery from a Class-C employee as well as a recovery made on the basis of the refixation made after 14 years of grant of the benefits.

¶46

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not require interference. The writ petition fails and same is accordingly

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:34555-DB WP No. 21083 of 2024

¶49

dismissed . Learned Government Advocate seeks two months

¶50

time to comply with the directions of the Tribunal.

¶51

Two months time is granted as sought for. Amounts recovered shall be refunded to the respondent as directed by the Tribunal with simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within two months from today.

¶52

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶54

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Govindappa M.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Govindappa M.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S New Prince Button Center Vs M/S Jasky Exports Private Limited

S.P.Velayutham Vs the Special Land Acquisition OFFICER-2

I B M India Private Limited (Substituted) Vs Mr Shreans Daga

Sri Pushyanth H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri K S Keerthikumar Vs the State of Karnataka