ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for the following reliefs: In W.P.No.1408/2022 i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the Official Memorandum vide No/EEE.Jnagar.AO.AAO.SA.2284 dated 29.06.2020 issued vide Annexure-A by respondent-3. ii. Consequently, issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.1,97,028/- to the petitioner along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment as per the Pension payment order vide No.BP-2476 dated 13.08.2020 (vide Annexure-F). iii. Pass any appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the interest of justice, including the cost of the litigation in the interest of justice and equity. In W.P.No.1394/2022 i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the Official Memorandum vide No/EEE.Jnagar.AO.AAO.SA2.4270 dated 03.09.2020 vide Annexure-A date 29.06.2020. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or an other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to refund the recovered sum of Rs.4,41,610/- to the petitioner along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment vide Annexure-F dated 09.10.2020. iii. Pass any appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the interest of justice including the cost of the litigation, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of these writ petitions are as follows: In W.P.No.1408/2022, the petitioner was appointed under the respondents during 1984 and after putting a qualifying service of 36 years, he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2020. While settlement of the terminal benefits, the respondents issued an Official Memorandum No.2284 dated 29.06.2020 issued by the respondents for having recovered Rs.1,97,028/- from the DCRG and Pensionary Benefits without any determination of amount in the departmental enquiry or any other proceedings. He retired as Group-C employee from the BESCOM, Bangalore. The petitioner aggrieved by the Official Memorandum dated 29.06.2020 and approval of Pensionary Benefits by issuing the Pension Payment Order No.BP 2476 dated 13.08.2020, the amount was recovered without any reasons. It is contended that the action of the respondents is impermissible and against the settled principles of natural justice. Thus, the deduction made by the respondents is illegal. The petitioner aggrieved by the Official Memorandum dated 29.06.2020 and approval of Pensionary Benefits by issuing the Pension Payment Order No.BP 2476 dated 13.08.2020, the amount was recovered without any reasons. It is contended that the action of the respondents is impermissible and against the settled principles of natural justice. Thus, the deduction made by the respondents is illegal. The petitioner submitted a representation requesting the respondents to restore the terminal benefits. However, the respondents declined to consider the representation. Hence, this writ petition. 2.1. In W.P.No.1394/2022, the petitioner joined the service under the respondents in the Maintenance Cadre, BESCOM on 01.11.1987. The submission of the Pension Docket along with all documents to BESCOM Office due to retirement on 31.07.2021 was forwarded. The recovery order was issued by the respondents for recovery and withdrawal of benefit already given as on during the retirement from service. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondents requesting to cancel the recovery of the amount. It is contented that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020. The respondents did not consider the request made by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In W.P.No.1408/2022, the respondents filed a statement of objections admitting the appointment of the petitioner in the BESCOM and also admitted that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is contended that at the time of reporting the duty, his pay scale was 330-610 and he was selected as Junior Engineer (El) under non-technical quota and reported for duty on 21.03.2018 with pay scale of Rs.26,270/- — Rs.65,020/- and was given annual promotions from time to time. It is contended that since the petitioner was selected to the post of Meter Reader under 10% quota and his line of promotion is entirely different. Hence, any benefit i.e., time bound promotion/career advancement plan if at all be given, then it has to be taken into consideration from 26.07.2003. The basic pay of Rs.23,080/- in the pay scale of Rs.11,750/- - Rs.29,070/- was fixed as on 01.04.2024. The basic pay scale should be re-fixed at Rs.22,460/- in the pay scale of Rs.9,290/- - Rs.23,080/-. Hence, any benefit i.e., time bound promotion/career advancement plan if at all be given, then it has to be taken into consideration from 26.07.2003. The basic pay of Rs.23,080/- in the pay scale of Rs.11,750/- - Rs.29,070/- was fixed as on 01.04.2024. The basic pay scale should be re-fixed at Rs.22,460/- in the pay scale of Rs.9,290/- - Rs.23,080/-. It is contented that the benefit of 30 years career advancement plan was withdrawn and it was brought to the notice of the petitioner regarding the payment of excess salary to him i.e., amounting to Rs.1,97,028/- and the respondent started deducting the said amount, then will be detected from the gratuity/DCRG amount. The action of the respondent in deducting the said amount is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 3.1. In W.P.No.1394/2020, the respondent filed a statement of objections admitting the appointment of the petitioner in the BESCOM and also admitted that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is contended that at the time of reporting the duty, his pay scale was 640-1200 and he was selected as Junior Engineer (E1) under non-technical quota and reported for duty on 20.01.2020 with pay scale of Rs.26,270/- — Rs.65,020/- and was given annual promotions from time to time. It is contended that since the petitioner was selected to the post of Meter Reader on 26.02.2010 under 10% direct recruitment in-service quota, the promotional increment in the higher post was fixed at Rs.8,095/- as on 26.02.2010 and the next annual increment has to be fixed on 01.04.2010. Instead of this, in the pay revision of the same year, it was again fixed at Rs.18,380/- as on 01.04.2010. However, it should have been at Rs.17,360/- and hence, it was wrongly fixed. It is also contended that the petitioner himself has filed an affidavit stating that the amount due to the Co-operative Bank may be deducted and remaining amount may be paid. It is also contended that the petitioner had executed a declaration for deducting the said amount. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 3.2. It is also contended that the petitioner himself has filed an affidavit stating that the amount due to the Co-operative Bank may be deducted and remaining amount may be paid. It is also contended that the petitioner had executed a declaration for deducting the said amount. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 3.2. In W.P.No.1394/2020, the respondents filed the rejoinder to the statement of objections, wherein the respondents in para No.2 of the rejoinder has stated that the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and he also admits that he had availed a long term loan from BESCOM Employees Co- operative Society and the balance amount of Rs.2,21,000/- may be deducted out of his DCRG amount and remaining DCRG amount may be credited. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitions submits that the pay scale was fixed by the respondents and the petitioners have not played any fraud on the respondents while fixing the pay scale. The respondents have paid the salary as per the pay scale and the petitioners retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. The respondents deducted the said alleged excess amount from the DCRG and gratuity. The action of the respondents in deducting the said amount is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S TATE OF P UNJAB V S . R AFIQ M ASIH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . He also submits that in an identical matter, this Court in W.P.No.22948/2017 allowed the writ petition vide order dated 09.11.2020 and the recovery of amount from DCRG of the petitioner therein pursuant to Annexure-A was quashed and directed the respondents to repay the amount recovered from the petitioner with interest at the rate of 5% per annum. Further, the similarly placed petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P No.41742/2017, this Court vide dated 24.06.2019 allowed the writ petition. The respondents aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No. 41742/2017 preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.3955/2019. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the respondents. Further, the similarly placed petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P No.41742/2017, this Court vide dated 24.06.2019 allowed the writ petition. The respondents aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No. 41742/2017 preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.3955/2019. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the respondents. He submits that the petitioners are entitled for the same relief on the ground of parity. He submits that the issue involved in these writ petitions are squarely covered by the order passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petitions. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petitions. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in both writ petitions submit that the respondents wrongly fixed the pay scale. When the respondents came to know about the wrong fixation of pay scale, the respondents started deducting the amount from DCRG and gratuity. He submits that the action of the respondents in deducting the said amount is in accordance with law. He submits that the petitioners have filed an affidavit stating that the amount may be deducted. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner in W.P.No.1408/2022 was appointed in the respondent- Corporation as Group C employee and the petitioner in W.P.No.1394/2022 joined the service under the respondents in the Maintenance Cadre, BESCOM on 01.04.1984 and on 01.11.1987 respectively. While issuing the pension authorization, the respondents under Annexure-A dated 29.06.2020 directed to recover the amount of Rs.1,97,028/- in W.P.No.1408/2022 and under Annexure-A dated 03.09.2020 directed to recover the amount of Rs.2,20,610/- in W.P.No.1394/2022. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners pay was wrongly fixed. Admittedly, the wrong fixation of pay was more than 30 years. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have played a fraud and not fixed the pay scale. The respondents will fix the pay scale of the petitioners. There is no role of the petitioners in fixing the pay scale. Though the petitioners have given an undertaking only on the ground that the respondents have produced Extract from Pension Board. It is in a Pro forma. There is no fault on the part of the petitioners in fixing the pay scale. 9. There is no role of the petitioners in fixing the pay scale. Though the petitioners have given an undertaking only on the ground that the respondents have produced Extract from Pension Board. It is in a Pro forma. There is no fault on the part of the petitioners in fixing the pay scale. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R AFIQ M ASIH (Supra) held that, if the amount is paid to the employee, the same cannot be recovered after attaining the age of superannuation that to in Group-C. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Mohinedeen Vs. the Managing Director, Corporate Office, Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. and others in W.P.No.22948/2017, a similar endorsement was set aside and directed the respondents to repay the amount. The petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the order passed in W.P.No.22948/2017. W.A.No.3955/2019 and W.A.No.187/2021. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of S YED M OHIYUDDIN AND THE M ANAGING D IRECTORS AND OTHERS in W.P.N O .22948/2017 . The petitioners are entitled for similar order on the ground of parity. 10. Though the petitioner in W.P.No.1408/2022 he retired from service in 2020, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit dated 18.05.2020. The petitioner has denied that no such affidavit is filed by him. There is a specific denial by the petitioners regarding execution of Annexed-R1. 11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed. ii. The order dated 29.06.2020 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A in W.P.No.1408/2022 is hereby quashed and order dated 03.09.2020 passed by respondent No3 vide Annexure-A in W.P.No.1394/2022 is hereby quashed. iii. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,97,028/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 5% per annum in W.P.No.1408/2022 and Rs.2,20,610/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 5% per annum in W.P.No.1394/2022 with 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. iv. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly .