Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mamu Ram vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 27 September, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12514 of 2011
Date of decision: 27th September, 2012
Mamu Ram
Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner retired as a Junior Engineer from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kaithal on 30th September, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.1,81,271/- has been withheld from his retiral benefits on the pretext of some recoveries against him for the year 1970.
In this petition, prayer of the petitioner is for release of the said amount, as the same was withheld without any justification or holding any enquiry or issuance of a show-cause-notice.
Para Nos.2 to 4 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents reads thus:
"2 to 4. That the contents of paras - 2 to 4 of the writ petition are wrong and hence vehemently denied. In reply thereto it is admitted that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2008 while posted as Junior Engineer (F). However, it is completely wrongly that the service record of the petitioner was excellent. As a matter of record, the petitioner was a habitual offender and committed several acts of omission and commission during the discharge of his Civil Writ Petition No.12514 of 2011 2 official duties. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, the No Demand Certificate was sent through the different offices in which recovery for an amount of Rs.1,65,767/- was mentioned. The true photocopy of the No Demand Certificate showing several recoveries against the petitioner is attached herewith as Annexure R-3/1. In the Last Pay Certificate of the petitioner the recovery of Rs.1,65,767/- was also duly mentioned and these recoveries are well within the knowledge of the petitioner during his service with the respondent-Nigam and at the time of retirement also. The true photocopy of the Last Pay Certificate of the petitioner is attached herewith as Annexure R-3/2. Besides an amount of Rs.1,65,767/- there was another amount of Rs.15,504/- outstanding against the petitioner under the Miscellaneous Head. Therefore, while releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner i.e. Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity vide office order dated 16.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) an amount of Rs.1,81,271/- was rightly deducted from the petitioner, as the petitioner is liable to pay the same and inspite of the knowledge of the recovery of Rs.1,81,271/- petitioner took no steps, whatsoever, to clear/deposit the amount outstanding against his name as intimated by the different offices of the respondent-Nigam in their No Demand Certificate."
A perusal of the aforesaid averments made in the reply would show that the only stand taken by the respondents to defend the instant writ petition is that the recoveries made from the retiral benefits of the petitioner are to his knowledge. It has also been averred that the recoveries are being made for the reasons as mentioned in the No Demand Certificate.
However, it is the conceded position that the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner without giving him any show-cause notice or holding any enquiry. It may further be noticed at this stage that no mis-representation of any kind has been alleged against the petitioner.
Civil Writ Petition No.12514 of 2011 3
Admittedly, since the year 1970, till date of retirement of the petitioner, no notice has been issued to him for recovery of such an amount from him and even he has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing. In view of this, the respondent-Corporation was not justified to withhold the aforesaid amount because the recovery has been made against the petitioner for the reasons as mentioned in the No Demand Certificate, which was issued after retirement of the petitioner, without issuing him any show- cause notice etc. for the alleged recovery in the year 1970.
The aforesaid view of the Court is further strengthened by the judgment dated 26th May, 2009 rendered in CWP No.15555 of 2008 titled as 'Gurnam Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula and others' (Annexure P-7) and the judgment dated 20th December, 2010 passed in CWP No.16483 of 2009 titled as 'Hawa Singh v. State of Haryana and others' (Annexure P-8).
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the action of the respondents in recovering the amount of Rs.1,81,271/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the aforesaid amount deducted from the Gratuity of the petitioner, within a period of three months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to an interest @ 6 percent per annum.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE September 27, 2012 rps