Karnataka High Court
Sri. T. Srinivasa vs The Managing Director on 25 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16721
WP No. 9717 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.9717 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T. SRINIVASA
S/O. THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELEC.)
O/O THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELEC.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
220 KV RECEIVING STATION
TL & SS, HOODY
BENGALURU -560 048
RESIDING AT NO.39, LAKE CITY
T.C. PALYA, K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 036
Digitally signed by
CHAITHRA A ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. DEVARAJ N, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU -560 009
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER/
DIRECTOR (ADMN & HRD)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16721
WP No. 9717 of 2024
KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU -560 009
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
220 KV DIVISION
RECEIVING STATION
TL & SS, HOODY
BENGALURU - 560 048
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELEC.)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
220 KV RECEIVING STATION
TL & SS, HOODY
BENGALURU - 560 048
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.KA.NI.HIM(V)/T.L-S.S/HOODY/LE/
SA.LE/KA/4625 DTD 12.01.2024 MARKED AT ANNX-C AND ORDER
BEARING NO.KA.NI.HIM(V)/ T.L-S.S/ HOODY/ LE/SA.LE/ KA/4625-27
DTD. 25.01.2024 MARKED AT ANNX-D ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS THE
SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST, ARBITRARY, MALAFIDE,
UNREASONABLE AND GROSSLY VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16721
WP No. 9717 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by a retired employee of KPTCL feeling aggrieved by withholding an amount of Rs.4,42,758/- from the pensionary benefits. Feeling aggrieved by recovery initiated by respondent No.3
-KPTCL, the captioned writ petition is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The issue as to whether the respondents can venture into re-fixing the salary of an employee that too post retirement is no more res-integra.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds would bring to the notice of this Court that action of respondent No.3 - KPTCL in recovering a sum of Rs.4,42,758/- is clearly in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex -4- NC: 2024:KHC:16721 WP No. 9717 of 2024 Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ETC V. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) ETC1. He would point out that belated recoveries on the ground that they were wrongly paid to the employees cannot be entertained. More particularly, the benefits were extended not on account of fraud and mis-representation by the employee. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench relating to similar recovery initiated against petitioner's colleague. Referring to the judgment, he would point out that the issue is squarely covered and therefore, the impugned recovery as per Annexures - C & D is liable to be quashed.
5. However, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents has strongly contested writ petition and has contended that the action of recovery at the hands of respondent No.3 - KPTCL was in the light of benefits extended without any justifiable grounds. Therefore, it was well within the Authority of respondents 1 AIR 2015 SC 696 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:16721 WP No. 9717 of 2024 to initiate recovery proceedings. The petitioner has received excess payment and therefore has no locus to challenge the impugned recovery.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents and having taken cognizance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and the judgment rendered in an identical case, this Court is of the view that petitioner deserves to succeed in the captioned writ petition.
7. The impugned recovery is liable to be quashed as it is found unsustainable on two counts. The impugned recovery is found to be too vague and does not indicate either any anomaly or excess payment to the petitioner. The impugned order does not refer to any particular date, where excess payments were made to the petitioner.
8. Be that as it may, the Co-ordinate Bench placing reliance on the RAFIQ MASIH case, in an identical -6- NC: 2024:KHC:16721 WP No. 9717 of 2024 case, has set-aside similar recoveries and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to refund recovered amount with interest at the rate of 6%. Since petitioner is identically placed, he is also entitled for the relief in the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders bearing No.Ka.Ni.Him(V)/T.L-S.SS/Hoody/Le/Sa.Le /Ka/4625 dated 12.01.2024 as per Annexure - C and the impugned order bearing No.Ka.Ni.Him(V)/T.L-S.S/Hoody /Le/Sa.Le/Ka/4625-27 dated 25.01.2024 as per Annexure - D issued by respondent No.3 are hereby set-aside.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:16721 WP No. 9717 of 2024
(iii) The respondent No.3 is hereby directed to pay sum of Rs.4,42,758/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of recovery till realization.
(iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8