Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sat Pal Tyagi 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.15759 of 2011
Date of decision: 27th September, 2012
Sat Pal Tyagi
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 May, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.2,41,912/- 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 in reply to the contents of paras - 2 to 4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that at the time of retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009, an amount of Rs.2,41,912/- was outstanding against the petitioner on account of shortage of oil and damaged parts of transformers and same were mentioned in the Head "Misc. Advances" against the name of the petitioner and therefore, while releasing the gratuity of the petitioner vide Civil Writ Petition No.15759 of 2011 2 office order dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) an amount of Rs.2,41,912/- was rightly deducted and the petitioner is liable to pay the same. As a matter of record, the petitioner has himself submitted the requisite documents to the concerned Sub Divisional Officer for waiving of the shortages of oil and damaged parts of the transformers in accordance with the instructions of the respondent-Nigam. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was processed and the shortages of transformer oil and damaged parts of transformers were duly waived off as per the instructions/policy/DOP No.53 of UHBVN. The four such orders passed by the competent authority of the respondent-Nigam regarding the waiving off the shortage of transformer oil and damaged parts of the transformer dated 20.10.2010, office order No.102/S/6, dated 10.05.2011, office order No.101/S/6, dated 10.05.2011, office order No.278/S-6, dated 07.12.2010. The true photocopies of the office orders dated 20.10.2010, 10.05.2011, 10.05.2011 and 07.12.2010 are attached herewith as Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/4 respectively. Thus, the petitioner is well aware of the recoveries pending against his name and has duly got the requisite amount waived off as per the Nigam's instructions and thereafter file the above mentioned writ petition by concealing all these material facts from this Hon'ble Court and therefore it is humbly submitted that the above mentioned writ petition may kindly be dismissed on this ground alone. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware against the recoveries pending against him which were deducted vide office order dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) without his knowledge. Moreover, the petitioner during his service never submitted damaged transformers, parts of transformers to the store authorities of the respondent- Nigam well within time. Thus, the above mentioned petition may kindly be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court."
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 Civil Writ Petition No.15759 of 2011 3 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.
Admittedly, since the year 1970 till the 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 loss caused 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-6) 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.2,41,912/- 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, Civil Writ Petition No.15759 of 2011 4 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