Partly allowed

Sri Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2024WP/32251/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Works Inspector challenged an endorsement directing recovery of excess salary paid under a mistakenly higher pay scale. Relying on State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih, the court held recovery from a Group-C employee paid for over five years impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 16.05.2013 cannot be given effect to recover excess salaries; petitioner may file representation within four weeks for settlement of benefits due per permissible pay scale within thr

Sri Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22973 WP No. 32251 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 32251 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O MURIGEPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS WORKS INSPECTOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 102.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.G.T. KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER & DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, 9^TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:22973 WP No. 32251 of 2013

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-572 102.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-572 102.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1-R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.5.13 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNX-AS; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT 15 YEARS AUTOMATIC PROMOTION TO SR. SCALE OF PAY OF SR. WORK INSPECTOR WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is in service with the fourth respondent as a Works Inspector, and he is aggrieved by the second respondent's Endorsement dated 16.05.2013. The second respondent has issued this impugned Endorsement after the orders of this Court in W.P. No.35212/2011 which is disposed of on

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:22973 WP No. 32251 of 2013

¶26

22.06.2012. This Court has quashed the second respondent's earlier order dated 01.07.2011 but with liberty to examine whether the petitioner was promoted from the cadre of Mastries to the cadre of Works Inspector and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶27

The second respondent’s earlier order dated 01.07.2011 is for recovery of alleged additional salary and other benefits allowed to the petitioner on the ground that he is appointed to the post of a Jawan and later promoted to the post of a Mastry with the attached pay scale of Rs.810-1310 but the petitioner because of a mistake is allowed pay scale of Rs.1040-1900 attached to the post of Second Division Assistant. The second respondent, by the impugned Endorsement, after this Court's aforesaid order dated 22.06.2012 in W.P. No.35212/2011, has once again reiterated the terms of the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2011 holding that while fixing his pay

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:22973 WP No. 32251 of 2013

¶30

consequent to his promotion to the post of Mastry, he is admitted by mistake to the pay scale attached to the posts of Second Division Assistants.

¶31

Sri G.T. Kumar, the learned counsel for

¶32

the petitioner, submits that the third respondent by its order dated 17/22.9.2012 has recorded that the posts of Mastries are re-designated and equated to the post of Works Inspector from 01.01.1997 consequent to the Government Order dated 31.05.1977, and the learned counsel elaborates that because the Second Division Assistants and Works Inspectors with the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] are permitted the same pay scale, the petitioner has rightly been allowed the pay scale attached to the post of Second Division Assistant.

¶33

Sri G.T. Kumar further submits that

¶34

because both the fourth respondent and the BDA are under the department of Urban Development, the grant of pay scale attached to the post of Second

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:22973 WP No. 32251 of 2013

¶37

Division Assistant is justified. However, this Court must opine that it is not persuaded to conclude that because the pay scales for the posts of Second Division Assistant and the Works Inspector with the BDA are same and that both the second respondent and BDA come under the Department of Urban Development, the petitioner, who is working with the fourth respondent, [a City Municipal Council] should be permitted the same pay same scale.

¶38

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner proposes to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih [Whitewasher]¹ , to contend that because the petitioner was in Group-C post [ upon his promotion as Mastry which is later equated to the post of Water Inspector ] the respondents cannot recover monies paid, and more so because the

¶39

1 [2015]4 SCC 334

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:22973 WP No. 32251 of 2013

¶42

petitioner has been paid such salary from the year 1998.

¶43

It is seen that the Supreme Court in this

¶44

decision as regards the right of the employer to recover excess amount has enunciated thus:

¶45

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶46

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

¶47

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶48

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:22973 WP No. 32251 of 2013

¶51

for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶52

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶53

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

¶54

It is undisputed that the petitioner as of the order dated 01.07.2011 was paid salary and other benefits as per the pay scale attached to the post of Second Division Assistant for over 13 years and that he held Group - C post and this would fulfill the criteria mentioned in the afore proposition exposited by the Supreme Court. Hence, the following:

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:22973 WP No. 32251 of 2013

¶57

ORDER

¶58

[A] The petition is allowed in part holding

¶59

that the second respondent's order dated 16.05.2013 cannot be given effect to recover excess salaries paid, and the benefits due to the petitioner according to the pay scale otherwise permissible must be settled at the earliest within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶60

[B] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a representation with the second respondent for orders in this regard within four weeks from the date of

¶61

receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

¶64

SD/-

Sri Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt S B Hoovamma W/O Nanjesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Geetha B a Haveri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. N.C. Cheluvaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Anuradha M.N. Vs the State of Karnataka

D. Basavaraja Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.

R Shanmukappa Vs the General Manager