Partly allowed

Jayaram Reddy v. the Managing Director Corporation Office

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/1632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired BESCOM employee challenged an official memorandum reducing his basic pay and recovering excess increments from his pensionary benefits shortly before superannuation. The court quashed the unilateral order for lack of hearing, found Rafiq Masih inapplicable as the recovery order predated retirement, and permitted fresh proceedings after notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memorandum dated 17.06.2021 quashed; liberty reserved to respondents to issue notice, hear petitioner, and pass orders lawfully.

Jayaram Reddy Vs the Managing Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37085 WP No. 1632 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1632 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAYARAM REDDY JE RTD., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O. NANJA REDDY NOW RESIDING AT NO.173/09 1^ST CROSS, I MAIN, KASHI VISHWANATHA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560036.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATION OFFICE, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATE OFFICE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) KORAMANGALA DIVISION BESCOM, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. ABHIRAMI S. PILLAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:37085 WP No. 1632 of 2022

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM VIDE NO.EEE.KMGLDAO.AAO.SA.644 DATED 17.06.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an official memorandum bearing No.EEE.KMGLDAO.AAO.SA.644 dated 17.06.2021 by which, the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced to Rs.65,020/- to Rs.63,120/- and excess paid to the petitioner was ordered to be recovered. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.2,72,261/- along with interest at 18% per annum.

¶24

(i) The petitioner contends that he was

¶25

appointed in the maintenance cadre and absorbed into the regular establishment as Assistant Lineman on 01.04.1983.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37085 WP No. 1632 of 2022

¶27

He was thereafter promoted as the Meter Reader and Junior Engineer (Electrical) in Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company and retired on 31.07.2021. He claimed that during his 38 years of service, he had no blemish or any adverse remark. He submitted his papers for settlement of his pensionary benefit on 27.05.2021.

¶28

(ii) The respondent No.3 issued the impugned official memorandum, reducing the pay drawn by the petitioner and refixed it with effect from 2013 to 2021 and ordered recovery of Rs.2,72,261/- being the excess increment paid, from the pension/retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation protesting the refixation and ordering recovery of Rs.2,72,261/-. The petitioner contends that since he retired as a Group - C employee, no recovery was permissible as per various judgments of this Court. The petitioner contends that when the pensionary benefits were sanctioned on 31.07.2021, he came to know that a sum of Rs.2,72,261/was recovered. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation dated 20.09.2021 calling upon the respondents to refund the unauthorisedly recovered amount.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37085 WP No. 1632 of 2022

¶30

Since the respondents have cold shouldered the requests of the petitioner, he is before this Court challenging the impugned order directing recovery and for a direction to refund the recovered amount.

¶31

(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶32

that the petitioner had no role to play in excess career advancement increments being granted to him. He submits that when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement, the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order directing recovery of Rs.2,72,261/- from the retirement benefits. He contends that the petitioner is a Group - C employee and therefore no recovery could be effected in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

¶33

Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih - 2015(4) SCC 334 . He has also relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22948/2017 and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3955/2019 to contend that the order of recovery is bad in the eye of law.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the impugned order was passed

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37085 WP No. 1632 of 2022

¶36

while the petitioner was in service and that the respondents after verifying the excess payment made to the petitioner had rightly passed the impugned order directing recovery of Rs.2,72,261/-. He contends that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih and judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon by the petitioner is in applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as they are distinguishable on facts. He contends that the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2021, while the impugned order was passed on 17.06.2021 and hence, the facts of the case are distinguishable.

¶37

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶38

A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.06.2021 establishes that the same was done unilaterally and without hearing the petitioner. The impugned order was passed just before the petitioner superannuated from service i.e., on 31.07.2021. In the matters regarding reduction of basic pay, the respondents were bound to hear the petitioner

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37085 WP No. 1632 of 2022

¶40

and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Since the same is not done, but is done unilaterally, the same deserves to be set at naught on this short ground alone.

¶41

In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondents could not recovered the excess payment from the terminal benefit of the petitioner, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih , and the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court and Division Bench of this Court referred supra, the said judgments are distinguishable on facts as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. In Rafiq Masih , the Court was considering a case of recovering the excess payment made from the pensionary benefits of a retired group 'C' and 'B' employee. However, in the present case, the order of recovery was passed even before the petitioner retired from service. Hence the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶42

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 17.06.2021 is

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37085 WP No. 1632 of 2022

¶44

quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner to show-cause why the basic pay of the petitioner should not be reduced and

¶45

after hearing him the respondents may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶46

All contentions are kept open.

¶47

In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2024

¶48

does not survive for consideration and the same stands

¶49

disposed off.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Jayaram Reddy v. the Managing Director Corporation Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaram Reddy v. the Managing Director Corporation Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Benakesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs the Kuvempu University

Sri Manjunath Banni Vs the General Manager

Sri G B Marappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chandrakala Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. K. N. Sujatha Vs the Government of Karnataka