J. Anthonyraju v. Director (a and Hr)

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2026WP/14217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: recovery from pensionary benefits; excess payment; five-year bar; Group 'C' employee; withheld annual increment; departmental enquiry; BESCOM; KPTCL; superannuation; writ of certiorari; writ of mandamus; refund with 6% interest; Articles 226 & 227; Rathnsingh Naik v. Director (A and HR), W.P. No. 2448/2022 (followed); State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (referred, within quoted extract); Karnataka High Court; S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; O.M. dated 24.04.2023 quashed; Rs. 3,01,834/- refund.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned Official Memorandum at Annexure-C dated 24.04.2023 issued by respondent No.4 quashed; respondent No.4 directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 3,01,834/- with 6% interest per annum within three months of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶¶79

J. Anthonyraju Vs Director (a and Hr) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents could recover Rs. 3,01,834/- from the petitioner's retirement/pensionary benefits by the Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2023, when the order withholding one annual increment was passed as far back as 13.03.2014 â i.e., whether recovery beyond a period of five years (here, more than nine years) is impermissible.

¶¶40

Court's answer

Retirement/pensionary benefits payable to a Group 'C' employee are not recoverable after the maximum/upper limit of five years from when the excess payment was made, as reiterated by this Court in Ratansingh Naik's case.

¶¶69

Ratio / Principle

Since the order withholding one annual increment was passed on 13.03.2014 and the impugned recovery was effected only after more than nine years, the impugned Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2023 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, warranting interference.

¶¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law â Recovery from retirement/pensionary benefits â Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India â Petitioner, a retired Senior Assistant (Group 'C') of BESCOM, had one annual increment withheld by departmental order dated 13.03.2014, but the respondents continued payment till 24.03.2023 and sought recovery of Rs. 3,01,834/- from his pensionary benefits only by Official Memorandum dated 24.04.2023, after his superannuation on 31.03.2023 â Held, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Rathnsingh Naik v. Director (A and HR), W.P. No. 2448/2022, retirement/pensionary benefits of a Group 'C' employee are not recoverable beyond the upper limit of five years from when the excess payment was made; recovery after more than nine years is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law â Impugned Official Memorandum quashed; respondent No.4 directed to refund Rs. 3,01,834/- with 6% interest per annum within three months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.14217 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

J. ANTHONYRAJU S/O PHILOMINA BALAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR ASSISTANT NANDAGUDI SUB DIVISION, HOSKOTE DIVISION, HOSKOTE – 562 114 R/AT NO.18, MIG -1, KHB COLONY NEAR CANARA BANK, HOSAKOTE – 562 114

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SANGEETHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

DIRECTOR (A & HR) KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVANA, BANGALORE – 560 009.

¶15

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F & C) BESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶16

SUPERINTENDING ENIGNEER (ELE) BESCOM, O & M RURAL CIRCLE, TTMC BUILDING, KENGERI, BANGALORE – 560 060

¶17

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, O & M, HOSKOTE DIVISION, KEB CIRCLE, HOSKOTE TOWN, HOSKOTE – 562 114

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. T.S. VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.PÁ¤EA (ªÁ, PÁ & ¥Á)/ºÉÆ«/¯É/¸À¯É/¹¸À2/2022-23/494 DATED 24/04/2023 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WP AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶28

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Official Memorandum bearing No: PÁ¤EA (ªÁ, PÁ & ¥Á)/ºÉÆ«/¯É/¸À¯É/¹¸À- 2/2022-23/494 dated 24.04.2023, issued by the 4^th respondent vide Annexure-C to the writ petition.

¶29

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to refund the entire amount of Rs.3,01,834/along with interest at 6% p.a. to be effective from 01.04.2023 as per the representation of the petitioner dated 01.06.2023 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶30

iii) Issue such other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

¶31

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that

¶35

when the petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant in the respondent Nos.2 to 4 – Company, they initiated a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner, which culminated in an order dated 13.03.2014 (Annexure-R5 along with Statement of objections) whereby respondent Nos.2 to 4 came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and consequently withheld one annual increment payable to the petitioner. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that though the said order was passed as long back as on 13.03.2014, respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not withhold any annual increment payable in favour of the petitioner and continued to make payment to the petitioner till 24.03.2023 upto 9 years from the date of the said order. Meanwhile, the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2023, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 purporting to recover a sum of Rs.3,01,834/- from out of the retirement / pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance

¶39

upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Annexure-F in the case of Rathnsingh Naik Vs. The Director (A and HR) and others – W.P.No.2448/2022 in order to contend that

¶40

any recovery beyond a period of 5 years is impermissible in law. The said order reads as under:

¶41

“The petitioner, who has retired from service with BESCOM on 30.06.2021, has called in question the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.2021 [Annexure-D]. The petitioner by the impugned Official Memorandum dated 05.07.2021 is informed that a sum of Rs.8,09,556/- would be deducted from his pensionary benefits as excess salary is paid to him for the period between 24.03.1999 and 13.05.1999 and 24.03.2002 and 30.06.2021. The petitioner’s case is that the respondents cannot deduct any amount from his pensionary benefits in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v.

¶42

Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others .

¶43

2. Sri K.Srinivasa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has declared that the recoveries cannot be deducted from the retirement benefits of either Group - C or Group -D employee, and the petitioner, who is working as Senior Assistant with BESCOM, has retired as a Group-C employee. Sri K.Srinivasa also emphasizes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the alleged excess payment

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

is made over a period of five years, there cannot be any recovery.

¶48

3. Sri Shamanth Naik, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner, who was required to submit his documents to enable the Corporation to assess his entitlement for pension and retirement benefits, has furnished the documents, and only on scrutiny of these documents it is seen that the petitioner is paid salary at a higher scale. As such, the petitioner is issued with the Official Memorandum dated 01.07.2021 informing him that excess salary paid for over period would be deducted and the petitioner has submitted his letter dated 03.07.2021 stating that if any amount is legally due, it could be recovered from his pension. It is only consequent to such response, the impugned Official Memorandum date 05.07.2021 is issued.

¶49

4. In rejoinder, Sri K.Srinivasa submits that on 05.07.2021 [the date of the impugned Official Memorandum], the petitioner is issued with the show cause notice as to why a sum of Rs.8,09,566/- should not be deducted. If the impugned Official Memorandum dated 05.07.2021 is issued in response to the petitioner’s response dated 03.07.2021, there would be no occasion to issue the show cause notice dated 05.07.2021. It is thus from the records shown that the petitioner is constrained to file his response on 03.07.2021, and if the constraint is established, the contention that the impugned Official Memorandum is issued based on the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

petitioner’s response dated 03.07.2021 is rendered untenable in law.

¶54

5. It cannot be gainsaid that with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others supra, there is a clear embargo on the recoveries being made from the retirement/pensionary benefits of a Group-C or Group-D employee and with the further embargo on such recovery when it is on the ground that excess payments have been made and such payments are made for more than five years before the date of order of recovery. The petitioner must succeed on the first ground, and he must also succeed on the second ground as is obvious from the impugned Official Memorandum that the recoveries are made for the alleged excess payments for two periods commencing in 1999 and 2002.

¶55

6. Further, as pointed by Sri K.Srinivasa that the arbitrariness in issuing the impugned Official Memorandum dated 05.07.2021 stands out inasmuch as on the date of the Official Memorandum, show cause notice is also issued calling upon the petitioner to show why there must not be deduction and this is notwithstanding the respondent’s case that the petitioner had filed response agreeing to deduct the amount on 03.07.2021. Furthermore, the petitioner’s response dated 03.07.2021 does not enable the respondent to avoid the embargo as aforesaid because the petitioner has only said that the amount that could be deducted in law

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

could be deducted from his retirement benefits. For the foregoing, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

[a] The petition is allowed, and the impugned Official Memorandum dated 05.07.2021 is quashed. Consequentially, the respondents are directed to repay any amount that may be deducted from the petitioner’s pension along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶62

[b] The petitioner to avail the benefit of such refund with interest is reserved liberty to file a representation with the fourth respondent within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and if such representation is filed, the fourth respondent shall pass suitable orders within a period of six weeks there from to enable refund as aforesaid.”

¶63

It is contended that as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order passed purporting to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner after more than 9 years deserves to be quashed.

¶64

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that since the aforesaid amount was paid by mistake by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to the petitioner, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 was fully justified in seeking to recover the

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

said amount having regard to the order dated 13.03.2014, which was passed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶69

As rightly contented by learned counsel for the petitioner, in Ratansingh Naik's case supra, this Court has reiterated the well settled position of law that retirement / pensionary benefits payable to a Group ‘C’ employee is not recoverable after the maximum / upper limit of five years from when the said excess payment was made i.e., from the date on which the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2014 at Annexure R5 was passed and the respondents woke up and purported to recover the said amount after more than 9 years from the date of the said order vide impugned order at Annexure – C dated 24.04.2023.

¶70

In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the order withholding one annual increment payable to the petitioner was passed as long back as on 13.03.2014, the impugned order was passed after more than 9 years thereafter is clearly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and the principles laid down by this

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:15635 WP No. 14217 of 2023

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Court in Ratansingh Naik's case supra, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶75

9. In the result, I pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶78

(ii) The impugned Official Memorandum at

¶79

Annexure – C dated 24.04.2023 issued by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed.

¶80

(iii) Respondent No.4 is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.3,01,834/- along with 6% interest per annum within a period of three months on the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶81

Sd/-

¶82

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶83

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

J. Anthonyraju v. Director (a and Hr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Anthonyraju v. Director (a and Hr)

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

Sri.v. Ramachandra Vs the Managing Director

Sri.Revanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Shekar H S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. P Venkat Naik Vs the Commissioner

Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs the Competent Authority for

Sangeeta R Vs State of Karnataka