Allowed

M C Sunanda v. the State of Karnatkaa

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/21140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging a respondent's order deducting alleged excess family pension. The court quashed the order, emphasizing that appropriate notice to show cause must be issued before deducting any amount from the pension.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order deducting Rs. 7,977 was quashed. Respondent directed to issue notice to show cause and cannot deduct any pension until process is complete.

M C Sunanda Vs the State of Karnatkaa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38914 WP No. 21140 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21140 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M.C. SUNANDA, LATE BASAVARAJE GOWDA B., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562117.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

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

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, KANAKAPURA DIVISION, KANAKAPURA-562117.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 06.08.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH SMT RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 IN NO.PÁ¤JA(«)/PÀ«/¯É/¸À¯É/¦A¸À/2004-05.2272 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38914 WP No. 21140 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶22

a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated: 25.07.2024 in No. KaNiIm(Vi)/KaVi/Le/SaLe/PimSa/2004-05.2272, vide ANNEXURE - E passed by the 2^nd respondent;

¶23

b) Consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to remit back the deducted amount to the account of petitioner;

¶24

(i) The petitioner contends that her husband

¶25

was working in respondent No.2 as meter reader and he died on 16.01.2005. The petitioner was entitled to family pension which was granted by respondent. She was being paid pension from time to time as per the pension rules and regulation by the respondents. The son of the petitioner was appointed in the Office of respondent No.2

¶26

on 22.02.2013.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38914 WP No. 21140 of 2024

¶28

(ii) She claims that, she was being paid pension regularly. However, on 25.07.2024, she received an undated letter addressed by respondent No.2 informing that an excess pension of Rs.1,57,115/- was paid to her and a sum of Rs.7,977/- would be deducted from the pension that would be paid from then on. Following this, the petitioner received another notice dated 25.07.2024 on the same lines.

¶29

(iii) The petitioner submitted a reply requesting the respondent No.2 not to deduct the amount, as the amount after deduction would not be sufficient to meet her needs.

¶30

The said reply was not considered by respondent No.2 but respondent No.2 proceeded to deduct the excess pension paid. The petitioner, therefore, is before this Court challenging the aforesaid act of respondent No.2 in deducting pension without even issuing a prior notice.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶32

that, a pension payment order was issued in the year 2005 and pension has been paid to the petitioner ever

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38914 WP No. 21140 of 2024

¶34

since then. He contends that the respondent No.2 has now woken from slumber and issued a unilateral order directing deduction of excess pension which was paid. He submits that, respondent No.2 must have heard the petitioner before deducting any amount from pension. Besides that, he contends that the respondent No.2 could not have deducted the pension that was paid to the petitioner long back.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has today, furnished certain documents which indicate that a special audit was conducted where it was found that excess pension was paid to the dependents of certain employees. Following the recommendation of special audit, the respondent No.2 had issued an official memorandum directing deduction of excess pension paid. It is contended that the excess pension paid was not only in respect of the petitioner, but various other persons and excess pension paid was ordered to be recovered and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any exception.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38914 WP No. 21140 of 2024

¶37

It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s payment

¶38

order was passed in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 2005 and the pension has been paid ever since then. The respondent No.2 relied upon certain special audit report which indicated excess pension paid to the dependents of few employees. Therefore, the respondent No.2 ought to have issued appropriate notices to the petitioner before proceeding to deduct the pension. In view of the fact the respondent No.2 has unilaterally proceeded to deduct the pension, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 deserves to be set at naught.

¶39

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed by respondent No.2 to deduct a sum of Rs.7,977/- from the family pension payable to the petitioner is quashed. The respondent No.2 shall issue appropriate notices calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as to why the excess pension allegedly paid should not be deducted. It is open

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38914 WP No. 21140 of 2024

¶41

for the petitioner to reply to the said notice, if any, and if the reply is submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall consider the reply and pass appropriate orders before proceeding to deduct the pension.

¶42

Until the aforesaid exercise is done, respondent

¶43

No.2 shall henceforth not deduct any pension allegedly paid in excess.

¶44

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

THM

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

M C Sunanda v. the State of Karnatkaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M C Sunanda v. the State of Karnatkaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devakumar. H. R. Vs State of Karnataka

Anjanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gurumalleshwara Maha Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs Sri M. Suresh

C Dhanaraju Vs High Court of Karnataka

Sri v G Venkatesh Vs the District & Sessions Judge

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka