Shri. Shivashankargouda S/O Timmanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

SHRI. SHIVASHANKARGOUDA S/O. TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SDA, R/O.H.NO.64, WARD NO.10, GADDANKERI CROSS, POST.BAGALKOT, TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VEENA HEGDE & SMT. ANNESAHEB SHALAGAR, ADVOCATES)

¶12

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHALNINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.07 11:53:41 +0530

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069 WP No. 101779 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

THE PRL. OF BVVS POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶21

ACCONTANT GENERAL (A ND E) AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREAMTH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PAY THE INTEREST AS ORDERED BY THIS HON BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 105188 OF 2022 DATED 13.09.2023 ANNEXURE – A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069 WP No. 101779 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶31

prayer.

¶32

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to pay the interest as ordered by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.105188/2022 dated 13.09.2023 vide Annexure – A in the interest of justice.

¶33

Any other reliefs as such deemed fit by this Honb’le Court.”

¶34

The petitioner was before this Court in Writ Petition No.105188 of 2022. This comes to be allowed by setting aside the impugned action therein by the following order:

¶35

“8. The Apex Court has laid down 5 Postulates when recovery can be made on excess payment being made to employees. The case at hand would clearly cover Postulates (i), (iii) and (iv) of those Postulates. Therefore, the recovery that is now sought to be made from the hands of the petitioner is completely contrary to law and

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069 WP No. 101779 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq (supra).

¶40

The submission of the learned AGA that the petitioner himself has given an affidavit of undertaking for recovery of the amount and that is a license for such recovery is noted only to be rejected, as it is fundamentally flawed. An undertaking taken from an employee to give up terminal benefits or statutory benefits is an undertaking that is contrary to public policy. It is an unconscionable agreement. It would amount to an agreement between the mighty employer and an employee, who wanted to get pension, and was asked to sign on dotted lines, which by no stretch of imagination can become a license for the State to recover the amount from its employee.

¶41

For all the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The petition is allowed.

¶44

ii. The Order dated 10.02.2022 bearing No.DTE 34 TBS 2021, Bengaluru, passed by 3^rd respondent stands quashed.

¶45

iii. The amount that is recovered/withheld/forfeited from the pension of the petitioner shall be repaid/refunded to the petitioner within eight

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069 WP No. 101779 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with interest at 6% per annum from the date it was to be paid, till the date, it would be paid.

¶49

iv. In the event, the amount is not paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the petitioner shall become entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of its payment.”

¶50

The order passed was unequivocal that the petition was allowed with grant of 6% interest per annum from the date it was paid till the date it would be paid. In the event it would not be paid within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the petitioner was declared to become entitled to 18% interest per annum. The amount was admittedly not paid within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. On a specious plea, that the State has preferred a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No.100280 of 2024. The writ appeal comes to be dismissed on 25.07.2024 by affirming the order passed by this Court supra. Even then the amount was not paid. The petitioner was constrained to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court in CCC No.100096 of 2024. After issuance of notice in the contempt, an undertaking was submitted before the Contempt

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069 WP No. 101779 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Bench that they would comply with the order. It is only then, 6 weeks’ time was granted and the order stood complied. In all the jugglery of dates, both the petitioner and the respondent forgot about the interest and therefore, the subject petition has sprung again.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount with interest has not been paid and admittedly the amount was not paid within 8 weeks. Therefore, interest at 18% must be paid from the date it fell due till the date of payment.

¶55

The learned HCGP would put up vehement opposition to grant of any interest contending that before the Division Bench nor before the Contempt Court, the petitioners made any hue and cry about grant of interest. Therefore, no interest was paid. The petitioner has accepted the amount in the contempt proceedings without any demur. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest whatsoever.

¶56

The Learned HCGP would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15069 WP No. 101779 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

In the teeth of the afore-narrated facts, what would unmistakably emerge is, the amount that was paid to the petitioner ought to have been paid along with interest, as the direction No.3 was clear that the amount was to be refunded with interest at 6% within 8 weeks. It is not paid within 8 weeks. Before the Division Bench there is no modification of the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner thus becomes entitled to interest at 18% per annum as was directed.

¶60

In the light of it being public money, I deem it appropriate to restrict the interest at 12% per annum from the date it fell due till the date it reached the doors of the petitioner. The said interest amount at 12% shall be paid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not, it shall now carry 24% from the date it fell due till the date of payment.

¶61

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶62

RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Shri. Shivashankargouda S/O Timmanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shivashankargouda S/O Timmanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Mehaboob Hakki Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Basavaraj R Bagade S/O Late Ramachandrappa Bagade Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Uday S/O. Tualasidas Bandekar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vanita W/O Chandrakanth Badiger Vs Chandrakanth S/O Nagappap Badiger

Farooqe Ahmed Iqbal Ahmed Balekundri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Basavaraj S/O Channamallappa Soudatti Vs the Divisional Controller