M Prakash Vs the Managing Director Corporate Office

M PRAKASH JR ENGINEER, ELE RET. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND PWD OFFICE, SUBRAMANYANAGARA, TURUVEKERE, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 227.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MADHVACHAR M.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE AND COMMERCIAL, CORPORATE OFFICE, BESCOM,

¶16

K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(EL) KPTCL, TL AND SS DIVISION, TUMKURU-572 102.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. N R PADMA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE RECOVERY /ADJUSTMENT VIDE A). O.M.NO.KANI.EM(V)TLSS.TU.LEAA.SALEAA. HISA.SISA-1.2021-22/4028 DATED 13.08.2021 VIDE ANNX-A

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:50181 WP No. 15406 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ISSUED BY R-3 BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , ELEL., KPTCL TUMKUR AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following

¶29

prayer:

¶30

''(i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ,, order or direction quashing the recovery/Adjustment vide

¶31

i) O.M No.Kani. Em(V) TLSS. Tu. Leaa. saleaa. hisa.sisa1.2021-22/4028 dated 13.8.2021 vide Annexure 'A' Issued by Respondent-3 by Executive Engineer, Elel., KPTCL Tumkur.

¶32

ii) Order vide P.P.O No.BKP/860 dated 14^th Sept 2021 vide Annexure 'B' issued by Respondent-2 Corporate Office, BESCOM, KR Circle., Bangalore-56 00 01.

¶33

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the Respondents to refund the recovered /adjusted sum of Rs.4,53,844/- to the Petitioner along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement to the date of payment as per the Pension payment order vide No.BP BKP/860 14.09.2021 vide Annexure-B.

¶34

iii) Pass any appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice, including the cost of the litigation in the interest of justice and equity.''

¶35

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition

¶36

are as follows:

¶37

The petitioner joined the service at KEB and retired as a

¶38

Junior Engineer, (Electrical), KPTCL, Tumakuru on 31.03.2021.

¶39

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50181 WP No. 15406 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

He is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶42

India, praying for a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-A dated 13.08.2021 and Annexure-B dated 14.09.2021.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2021. While the petitioner was in service, the petitioner was granted an additional increment for having completed 30 years of service.

¶45

Learned counsel contend that without providing an opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No.3 passed the official memorandum at Annexure-A dated 13.08.2021 and respondent No.2 passed Annexure-B, dated 14.09.2021, directing the recovery of sum of Rs.4,53,844/- on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled for grant of increment.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Group-C employees on their retirement,

¶47

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50181 WP No. 15406 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the recovery amount towards the wrong grant of increment, would not be permissible. To buttress, his arguments has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih

¶50

(White Washer) and others¹ . He also submits that the similarly placed persons petitioner, approached this Court in W.P.No.1289/2022. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 07.11.2022, allowed the writ petition and passed a similar impugned orders. Hence, he submit that the petitioner is entitled for similar benefit on the ground of parity

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner concentrated for recovery from the out of his terminal/pensionary benefits. At the time of retirement, the petitioner had no other option but to give such a consent/undertaking for the settlement of a pensionary benefits. She contended that the petitioner is estopped to challenge the official memorandum. Hence, on these grounds she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶52

1 (2015) 4 SCC 334

¶53

5 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:50181 WP No. 15406 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Perused the records and considered the submissions of

¶57

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶58

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working in the respondent-Corporation and the petitioner retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent passed an order to recover the amount of Rs.4,53,844/- on the ground that the increment has been wrongly given to the petitioner. In a similarly placed petitioners the respondents have issued a similar official memorandum of office wherein this Court in the case of Sri. K. Kumar VS.

¶59

Managing Director, Karnataka Power Transmission

¶60

Corporation Ltd., and others in W.P.No.1289/2022 , set aside the similar impugned orders. The petitioner is entitled for similar benefit on the ground of parity. The Co-ordinate Bench has also placed reliance on the judgment of the hon'ble Apex

¶61

Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq

¶62

Masih (White Washer) and others² and held that the respondents are not entitled to recover the said amount as the

¶63

2 (2015) 4 SCC 334

¶64

6 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:50181 WP No. 15406 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

petitioner has not misrepresented or played fraud on the respondents.

¶68

Hence, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) Petition is allowed .

¶71

(ii). Annexure-A dated 13.08.2021 and Annexure-B dated 14.09.2021 passed by the respondents are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.4,53,844/- to the petitioner along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of due payment till the date of payment within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶72

In view of allowing of the writ petition, pending

¶73

I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration.

¶74

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶75

RL

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

M Prakash v. the Managing Director Corporate Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Prakash v. the Managing Director Corporate Office

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

B Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs Sunitha Naik

Shri Narasaiah Vs Smt Narasamma

Sri Rajendra Kumar S Kadakol Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chayadevi Vidyanikhetana Trust (R) Vs Dr. Basavaraju S.

Savithri Vs Lakshmamma