Allowed

Sri Hanumanthaiah M H v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024WP/560/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired BESCOM Junior Engineer challenged withholding of Rs.1,55,176 from his retiral benefits by way of recovery of alleged excess payment. Relying on Rafiq Masih and an identical Co-ordinate Bench order, the High Court quashed the recovery and directed refund with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order dated 31.07.2019 set aside; respondent No.3 directed to pay Rs.1,55,176 with 6% interest from date of recovery till realization, within three months.

Sri Hanumanthaiah M H Vs the Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11649 WP No. 560 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.560 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI.HANUMANTHAIAH M H S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELEC) O/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) BESCOM, W3 SUB-DIVISION, O AND M 8 MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU - 560 023 RESIDING AT NO.231 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS NEAR GANGADHARESHWARA SCHOOL KAMALANAGARA BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.DEVARAJ N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERI BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:11649 WP No. 560 of 2024

¶16

THE GENERAL MANAGER/ DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HRD) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERI BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) BESCOM, VIDHANA SOUDHA DIVISION NO.32/1/2, 3^RD FLOOR CRESCENT ROAD CRESCENT TOWER MADHAVANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) BESCOM, W3 SUB DIVISION, O & M 8 MAGADI ROAD

¶19

BENGALURU - 560 023

¶20

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F AND C ) BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE KR CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.C.CHANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 TO R.5)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.KANIHIM(V)/ VV/LE/SALE/2019-20/987 DTD 31.07.2019 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE R3 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL,

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11649 WP No. 560 of 2024

¶25

UNJUST, ARBITRARY, MALAFIDE, UNREASONABLE AND GROSSLY VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The captioned writ petition is filed by the retired employee of BESCOM feeling aggrieved by withholding an amount of Rs.1,55,176/- out of retrial benefits. Feeling aggrieved by recovery initiated by respondent No.3 – BESCOM, the captioned writ petition is filed.

¶29

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

petitioner.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶32

reiterating the grounds would bring to the notice of this Court that action of respondent No.3 - BESCOM in recovering a sum of Rs.1,55,176/is clearly in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:11649 WP No. 560 of 2024

¶35

Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

¶36

ETC V. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) ETC¹ .

¶37

He would point out that belated recoveries on the ground that they were wrongly paid to the employees cannot be entertained. More particularly, the benefits were extended not on account of fraud and mis-representation by the employee. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench relating to similar recovery initiated against petitioner’s colleague. Referring to the judgment, he would point out that the issue is squarely covered and therefore, the impugned recovery as per Annexure – B is liable to be quashed.

¶38

However, learned counsel appearing

¶39

for contesting respondents has strongly contested writ petition and has contended that the action of recovery at the hands of respondent No.3 – BESOM was in the light of benefits extended without any justifiable grounds. Therefore, it was well within the Authority of respondents

¶40

1 AIR 2015 SC 696

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:11649 WP No. 560 of 2024

¶43

to initiate recovery proceedings. The petitioner has

¶44

received excess payment and therefore has no locus to challenge the impugned recovery.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶46

for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents and having taken cognizance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and the judgment rendered in an identical case, this Court is of the view that petitioner deserves to succeed in the captioned writ petition.

¶47

The impugned recovery is liable to be quashed

¶48

and it is found unsustainable on two counts. The impugned recovery is found to be too vague and does not indicate either any anomaly or excess payment to the petitioner. The impugned order does not refer to any particular date, where excess payments were made to the petitioner.

¶49

Be that as it may, the Co-ordinate Bench

¶50

placing reliance on the RAFIQ MASIH case, in an identical

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11649 WP No. 560 of 2024

¶52

case, has set-aside similar recoveries and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay recovery amount with interest at the rate of 6%. Since petitioner is identically placed, he is also entitled for the relief in the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench.

¶53

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds

¶54

to pass the following;

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶57

(ii) The impugned order bearing No.KaNiHim(V)/VV/Le/Sale/2019-20/987 dated 31.07.2019 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-B is hereby setaside.

¶58

(iii) The respondent No.3 is hereby directed to pay sum of Rs.1,55,176/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of recovery till realization.

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:11649 WP No. 560 of 2024

¶60

¶61

(iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶62

(v) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

NBM

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Hanumanthaiah M H v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hanumanthaiah M H v. the Managing Director

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

Dr.a.Murugeppa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Venkateshaiah Vs Union of India

Mr. B L Neelakantachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. G.V. Rajkumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M L Nagaraja Vs Hmt Machine Tools Limited

Anjaneyalu B R Vs the State of Karnataka