Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible if initiated five years after retirement, as established in Rafiq Masih's case.

ORDER :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for the following reliefs:

In W.P.No.49974/2019

i. To quash the impugned recovery notices, issued all the petitioners, as per Annexures-D, D1 to D16 by the order dated 23.09.2019, at No.FB/55/PAY+DA/2006-2007, by respondents No.4 and 5, by the issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order as the case may be.

ii. Issue such other incidental relief which may be deemed fit on the fact and circumstances and also for costs.

In W.P.No.49963/2019

iii. To quash the impugned recovery notices, issued all the petitioners, as per Annexures-G, G1 to G79 by the order dated 23.09.2019, at No.FB/55/PAY+DA/2006-2007, issued by the 4^th and 5^th respondents, by the issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order as the case may be.

iv. Issue such other incidental relief which may be deemed fit on the fact and circumstances and also for costs.

In W.P.No.11332/2020

v. Quash impugned recovery notice No.KARAMUVI/HAVI-03/2019-20 as per Annexures-G, G1 to G7 dated 10.09.2020 issued by the 4^th respondent, alleged to be based upon the Government order at ED311UNE2012(PART-2) as per Annexure-D passed by the 1^st respondent dated 14.06.2019.

vi. Issue such other incidental relief, which may be deemed fit on the facts and circumstances of the case and also for cost to secure the ends of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of these writ petitions are as follows:

The petitioners are challenging the recovery notices against the same respondents, hence, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. The petitioners joined and served the 3^rd respondent, and they retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Respondent No.2 issued an order deducting the alleged amount by way of 10 instalments in the monthly pension of the petitioners, holding that the disbursement of D.A. in the said period was illegal. It is contended that respondent No.2 had issued a circular to recover the same. Respondent No.3 issued a circular for recovery of alleged excess amount of D.A. in 10 instalments. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Hon'ble concerned Minister and other respondents and the same was ignored. The respondents threatened to implement the impugned circular from July 2019, pension payment. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 issued a recovery notices against all the petitioners, reporting that they will recover the arrears in 10 monthly instalments in the pension payment, which affected the petitioner. Hence, these writ petitions.

3. The respondents filed a common statement of objections in all three writ petitions contending that, the petitioners are all working/retired/resigned from the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professors at the Postgraduate Department of the respondent University. It is contended that the petitioners jointed the University service before the 6^th pay revision made by the University Grants Commission from 01.01.2006. While in service, UGC revised the pay scale from 01.01.2006 and in turn, the Government of Karnataka accepted the recommendation of the University Grant Commission vide order dated 24.12.2009 sanctioning UGC pay scales to the teachers. At the time of issuing the order dated 24.12.2009, the State Government has specifically stated that only pay scale are effective from 01.01.2006 and all other admissible allowances and other benefits are effective from the date of Government Order dated 24.12.2009. The State Government permitted the University to revise the pay scale notionally from 01.01.2006,