Dismissed¶56

The Union of India v. Shri Venugopal K C

Service law – Recovery of excess payment from retiral benefits

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/8966/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

recovery of excess payment; retiral benefits; Grade Pay Rs.4,600/-; Stenographer Grade-III; All India Radio; Super Power Transmitter Yelahanka; Central Administrative Tribunal Bengaluru; OA No.170/00419/2020; Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala; Rafiq Masih; no misrepresentation or fraud; erroneous interpretation of rule; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed; Karnataka High Court; SLP pending before Supreme Court

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the Tribunal's direction to the petitioners to release/refund Rs.4,34,700/- to the respondent remains undisturbed. ¶56

The Union of India Vs Shri Venugopal K C — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the Tribunal's direction to the petitioners to release/refund Rs.4,34,700/- to the respondent remains undisturbed.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order directing release/refund of Rs.4,34,700/- recovered from the respondent's retiral benefits was sustainable, given the petitioners' contention that the respondent was not in Class-III or Class-IV grade and the recovery was of excess payment made while settling retiral dues. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The Tribunal's decision did not rest solely on Rafiq Masih but ultimately on the principles in Thomas Daniel; therefore the objection that Rafiq Masih paragraphs 18[i] and 18[ii] were inapplicable (the respondent not being in Class-III or Class-IV) did not invalidate the Tribunal's order.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

There can be no recovery of excess payment where it was not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, or where the excess payment was made by the employer applying wrong principles for calculating pay/allowance or based on an interpretation of a rule/order later found erroneous; the Court held this principle applies squarely to the present case.

¶48

Key takeaways

There is no allegation of fraud against the respondent; the disputed recovery arose only from the authorities' understanding that the respondent had been admitted to Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 when his entitlement thereto commenced only on 24.04.2012, so the recovery could not stand.ratio¶55
Finding no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, the Court rejected the writ petition.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Recovery of excess payment from retiral benefits - Writ petition by Union of India/AIR officers under Articles 226/227 challenging CAT, Bengaluru order dated 17.03.2023 in O.A. No.170/00419/2020 directing refund of Rs.4,34,700/- deducted from a retired Private Secretary's (Stenographer Grade-III, joined 24.04.1982, retired 30.04.2019) retiral benefits over Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- (granted from 01.01.2006; entitlement only from 24.04.2012). Counsel argued the Tribunal could not rely on paragraphs 18[i]/18[ii] of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [2015] 4 SCC 334 as the respondent was not in Class-III/IV. Held: the Tribunal's decision rested ultimately on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC Online SC 536 - no recovery of excess payment absent misrepresentation/fraud or where the employer applied wrong principles or an erroneous interpretation of a rule/order; no fraud was alleged and the recovery flowed only from the authorities' mistaken understanding of the Grade Pay date. Petition dismissed; Tribunal's refund direction upheld. (B M Shyam Prasad and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 8966 OF 2024 (S-CAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶12

REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING A-WING SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ALL INDIA RADIO (AIR), AKASHVANI BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110001.

¶14

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (ENG) SUPER POWER TRANSMITTEER, AIR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE 560064.

¶16

THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER ALL INDIA RADIO, KAMARAJAR SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600004.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND:

¶23

SHRI VENUGOPAL K C S/O LATE R.C.NAIR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC RTD. PRIVATE SECRETARY, S.P.T. AIR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, RESIDING AT MIG-80, 707, CHS, 2^ND LANE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560064.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT, IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2023 ANNEXURE-A MADE IN OA No. 170/00419/2020 BY THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND DISMISS THE OA No. 170/00419/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶33

The Union of India and its concerned officers are aggrieved by the Order dated 17.03.2023 in O.A. No.170/00419/2020 with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Branch, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal' ]. The Tribunal, by this order dated 17.03.2023, has directed the petitioners to release/refund the amount of Rs.4,34,700/- to the respondent in an expedited manner but within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of its order.

¶34

The indisputable facts are that the respondent who entered service as ' a Stenographer Grade-III' on 24.04.1982 has retired from service with effect from 30.04.2019. The respondent is admitted to different financial upgrades, but a sum of Rs.4,34,700/- is deducted from his retiral benefits on the ground that he was not entitled to Grade Pay of

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Rs.4,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and that he would be eligible for such Grade Pay with effect from 24.04.2012. The Tribunal, considering the respondent's grievance that his representation for release of the amount withheld has not been considered, has directed release of the afore amount referring to the decision of the Apex Court in ' State of

¶39

Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih [White Washer] and

¶40

Others¹ '.

¶41

Sri Jayakara Shetty, the learned counsel

¶42

for the petitioner, relying upon the different principles enunciated by the Apex Court in paragraphs 18[i] and 18[ii], submits that the Tribunal could not have relied upon these paragraphs because indisputably the respondent was not in the Grade of Class-III or Class-IV and the recovery is of the excess payment made while settling the recovery dues. The learned counsel also submits that with writ petitions in

¶43

1 [2015] 4 SCC 334

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

similar circumstances being dismissed, the Union has filed a Special Leave Petitions with the Apex Court, which are pending consideration.

¶48

This Court must, in addressing the petitioners' grievance, observe that the Tribunal's decision is not just based on the exposition by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case [ supra ], but also its decision in ' Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Others'² . The Apex Court in this decision has reiterated that there cannot be any recovery of excess payment when such payment is not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee or when excess payment is made by the employer applying wrong principles for calculating the pay/allowance or based on a particular interpretation of Rule/order which may later found to be erroneous.

¶49

This Court must observe that this

¶50

principle squarely to the present case because there

¶51

2 2022 SCC Online SC 536

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:39778-DB WP No. 8966 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

is no allegation of fraud against the respondent and the alleged recovery is because of the Authorities understanding that the respondent has been admitted to Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 when he was entitled to such Grade Pay only with effect from 24.04.2012. The Tribunal has indeed referred to the principles enunciated by the Apex Court's decision in Rafiq Masih's case [ supra ], but the ultimate decision rests on the afore principles reiterated by the Apex Court in Thomas Daniel's case [supra].

¶56

As such, this Court does not find any reason to interference. Hence, the petition stands rejected.

¶57

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶59

AN/-

The Union of India v. Shri Venugopal K C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. Shri Venugopal K C

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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Informatica Llc

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Altair Engineering Inc.

Shivamadaiah M Vs the Director General

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs H K Thppeswamy

Sri.Prashant Kumar G Vs the Union of India

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka