Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs H R Nagaraj on 11 August, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
WRIT PETITION NO.4111 OF 2014(S-KAT)
C/W
WP.NOS.7094/14, 7095/14, 7096/2014,7098/2014,
9003/2014, 12644/2014, 12646/2014,
12918/2014,12645/2014 & 9647/2014
WP.NO.4111/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Hassan Division,
Hassan - 573 201. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
H.R.Nagaraj
S/o Rangaiah
Aged about 57 years
Working as Sub Postmaster
Salagame - 573 219,
Residing at SPM Quarters,
Salagame - 573 219. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 vide Annexure-A, in so far as waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP III is concerned in
respect of the respondent, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in
OA.No.519/2012.
WP.NO.7094/2014
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Hassan Division,
Hassan - 573 201. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
N.H.Parashiva Murthy
S/o late N.Halappa Shettar,
Aged about 59 years
Working as Sub Postmaster,
Didaga - 573 141,
Residing at Nuggehalli,
Channarayapatna
Hassan - 573 131. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-A), in so far as waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP III is concerned in
respect of the respondent, passed by the C.A.T. Bangalore
Bench, Bangalore in O.A.No.526/2012.
WP.NO.7095/2014
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
4
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Hassan Division,
Hassan - 573 201. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
Smt.K.C.Uma
W/o K.Harish,
Aged about 51 years
Working as Accountant,
Arsikere HPO - 573 103
Residing at 'Sapthagiri',
Maruthi Nagar,
Arsikere - 573 103. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 vide Annexure-A, in so far waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP III SCHEME in respect
of the respondent, passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in O.A.No.233/2012.
5
WP.NO.7096/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tumkur Division,
Tumkur - 572 102. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
Govindaiah
S/o Giddappa
Aged about 58 years
Working as Asst.Postmaster
Tiptur HO - 572 201
Residing at Sapthagiri Nilaya,
2nd Link Road, Maruthi Nagar,
Near P & T Quarters,
Tumkur - 572 201. ...RESPONDENT
*****
6
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-A), in so far waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP III from 25.4.2009 to
27.1.2010 is concerned in respect of the respondent,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench, Bangalore in O.A.No.101/2013.
WP.NO.7098/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tumkur Division,
Tumkur - 572 102. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
S.Sathiamurthy
S/o late Samba Murthy
Aged about 58 years
Working as Asst.Postmaster,
7
Tiptur HO - 572 201
Residing at 'Samba Nilaya',
Jayanagar West, Near Park
Shettihalli Road,
Tumkur - 572 102. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-A), in so far waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP III is concerned in
respect of the respondent, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in
O.A.No.33/2013.
WP.NO.9003/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tumkur Division,
Tumkur - 572 102. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
8
AND:
Mr.Purushotama
S/o late H.G.Gangadharaiah
Aged about 54 years
Working as Asst.Postmaster,
Tiptur HO - 572 201
Residing at Madihalli,
Tumkur - 572 201. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 vide Annexure-A in so far as waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP Scheme in respect of
the respondent, passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in O.A.No.34/2013.
WP.NO.12644/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
9
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tumkur Division,
Tumkur - 572 102. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
M.H.Nagaraju
S/o Hanumanthappa
Aged about 57 years
Working as Asst.Postmaster,
Peenya Small Industries S.O.,
Bangalore - 560 058
Residing at 'Ammaji Krupa',
2nd Main, 4th Cross,
Vijayanagara,
Tumkur - 572 102. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-A) in so far waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP III from 1.9.2008 to
1.5.2011 is concerned in respect of the respondent, passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench,
Bangalore in O.A.No.106/2013.
WP.NO.12646/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
10
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tumkur Division,
Tumkur - 572 102. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
Smt.Leelavathamma
W/o Nagarajaiah S.V.,
Aged about 56 years
Registered as Asst.Postmaster,
Tiptur H.O. - 572 201,
Residing at 'Sri Veerabhadraswamy Nilaya',
2nd Division, 3rd Cross,
Municipal Layout,
Siddaganga Extension,
Tumkur - 572 201. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-A), in so far waiving of
recovery is concerned in respect of the respondent, passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench,
Bangalore in O.A.No.96/2013.
11
WP.NO.12918/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 216.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 259.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Bangalore West Division,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
Vadiraja Upadhyaya
S/o M.S.Upadhyaya
Aged about 60 years
Rtd. Postal Assistant SBCO,
Rajajinagar HO, Residing at
No.163, 1st Cross,
Telecom Layout,
K.P.Agrahara,
Bangalore - 560 023. ...RESPONDENT
*****
12
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 vide Annexure-A, in so far refund the
recovery of benefit paid under MACP III is concerned in
respect of the respondent, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in
O.A.No.289/2012.
WP.NO.12645/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 259.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Shimoga Division,
Shimoga - 577 202. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
AND:
Mrs.G.Vanajakshi
W/o M.R.Narasimha Murthy
Aged about 54 years
Working as Postal Assistant,
Sagar HPO,
Sagar - 577 401
Residing at Bhimanakone
13
Sagar Taluk - 577 417. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 vide Annexure-A, in so far waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP III is concerned in
respect of the respondent, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in
O.A.No.75/2012.
WP.NO.9647/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Postmaster General
S.K.Region,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Hassan Division,
Hassan - 573 201. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.Pramod, CGSC)
14
AND:
K.Saganaiah
S/o Dasaiah
Aged about 58 years
Working as Sub Postmaster, Santhepet,
Hassan HO - 573 201,
Residing at Doddamandiganahalli,
5th Cross,
Hassan - 573 201. ...RESPONDENT
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 11.10.2013 vide Annexure-A, in so far waiving of
recovery of benefit paid under MACP SCHEME is concerned
in respect of the respondent, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in
O.A.No.518/2012.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, K.L.Manjunath J., made the following:-
ORDER
The short question that arises for consideration of this Court in these petitions is whether the financial assistance received by the employees of the postal department under a scheme known as Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Government employees can be ordered to be recovered. 15 On the ground that the said order is withdrawn by the Union of India several applicants approached the Tribunal in original application No.75/2012 and other connected matters. The applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal questioned the authority of the petitioners herein calling upon them to refund the amount received by them under MACP scheme and withdrawal of the benefits extended to them.
2. The tribunal after hearing granted a partial relief to the applicants holding that the amount paid to the applicants cannot be recovered, however, in regard to the challenge to the withdrawal of the benefit of (MACP) Scheme is rejected. Therefore the present petitions are filed by the Union of India challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench allowing the applications in-part.
16
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that it is not the case of the petitioners that the payment was made to the employees on account of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the employees. On the contrary, the payment was made to the employees by applying the MACP Scheme to them. If later the Union of India has withdrawn the MACP Scheme to the postal employees the payment made to the employees cannot be recovered in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of M.G.MAHESWARA RAO AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in ILR 2002(3) KARNATAKA 3848. Later on the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has held that such recovery is impermissible. The Hon'ble tribunal in detail at paragraphs 12 to 15 has held that how the Union of India cannot recover any amount.
17
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case that CHANDI PRASAD UNIYAL AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 at paragraph 14 contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that the excess payment of public money which is often described as tax payers money belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. Therefore he contends that the Union of India is justified in ordering recovery of excess amount paid to the respondents.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in paragraph 14 wherein Their Lordships have stated as hereunder:-
"14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "taxpayers' money" which belongs neither to the officers who have 18 effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, 19 otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment."
It is nodoubt true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others for recovery of excess money. In the said paragraph the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that there was an undertaking to repay the amount in the event of irregular fixation. Their Lordships have also held that whether such recovery can be made where the excess money is paid due to bonafide mistake. In the case of excess payment of public money by the Government officers, it may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. Their Lordships in paragraph-14 have given illustration where the money is paid at fault of the payer and payee and in such circumstances the money can be ordered to be recovered. In the instant case, no such undertaking has been given by the respondents herein and no fraud is played by the respondents. In the instant case, the respondents are 20 working in villages as Postmasters and Sub-Postmasters. They are drawing meager salary and have no promotional opportunities. They refuse to accept the promotion since on promotion their salary would have been reduced. In such circumstances, if MACP benefit is given to them by the petitioners for no fault of the respondents if an order is passed to recover the aforesaid amount it would cause great hardship to the persons who are working as Post masters or Assistant Postmasters drawing a meager salary. Therefore, we are of the view that the facts involved in the present case is different and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be directly applied to this case.
In view of the same we do not find any merit in these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.
It is needless to state that any observation made in these petitions shall not affect the claim of the respondents herein in the writ petitions challenged by them for 21 withdrawal of MACP scheme to them. The said case has to be considered by them separately.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Rsk/-