Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Chand Verma vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & ... on 15 December, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 14222 of 2013
Date of Decision: December 15, 2014
Prem Chand Verma .... Petitioner
VERSUS
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Poonia, Advocate
for the respondents.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
Feeling aggrieved against the impugned action of the respondent authorities, while withholding retiral benefits of the petitioner and also against the order of recovery on account of rectification of an alleged bonafide mistake in granting additional increment to the petitioner, he has approached this Court.
Present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the retiral benefits to him along with interest @ 18% from the date when it became due till the date of actual payment.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that so far as the rectification of bona fide mistake was concerned, the respondent authority was justified in doing the same. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities could not Pooja Saini 2014.12.24 10:31 have ordered recovery from the petitioner, he being a retiree. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2- Civil Writ Petition No. 14222 of 2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents took an inordinate long time of about 4 years to conclude the pending enquiries against the petitioner and a huge amount of Rs. 10,11,368/- was paid to him after four years, and that too, without interest. He further submits that petitioner was entitled for interest @ 18% on this amount of retiral benefits which was paid late to the petitioner. Similarly, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled for receiving the amount of Rs. 97,738/- which was withheld by the respondent authorities on account of different heads. This amount has still not been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on an order dated 29.03.2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 13039 of 1999 (Kirat Gopal versus HVPNL and others)and prays for allowing the present writ petition, by directing the respondents to pay all the unpaid retiral benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 18%.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since more than one enquiries were pending against the petitioner on account of different chargesheets, the total fault cannot be attributed to the respondents. Since there were more than one enquiries and the old official record was to be consulted, conclusion thereof took some time which was a bona fide reason and the same would not deserve to be a ground for payment of interest to the petitioner. He further submits that since the amount earlier withheld has already been paid on 3.10.2012, petitioner is not entitled for any interest on the said amount. However, he submits that payment of Rs.97,738/- shall be made to the petitioner within a reasonable time. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Pooja Saini 2014.12.24 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-3- Civil Writ Petition No. 14222 of 2013 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, instant writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.05.2008. However, the respondent authorities took an inordinate long period of more than four years in concluding the pending enquiries against the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 10,11,368/- was paid to the petitioner on 03.09.2011 i.e. after more than four years.
Similarly, the amount of Rs. 97,738/- which was withheld by respondent department without issuing any chargesheet, is yet to be paid to the petitioner. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities have illegally withheld the abovesaid amount on account of retiral benefits of the petitioner for an inordinate long period. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for interest as held by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa versus State of Punjab and others 1997(3) SCT468 followed by the Division Bench in Kirat Gopal's case ( Supra).
So far as the rectification of bona fide mistake in withdrawing the additional increment granted to the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly states that the respondents have right to do so. However, it is again settled proposition of law that while carrying out such rectification of any bona fide mistake, the respondent authority cannot order recovery from a retiree like the petitioner because there is no allegation Pooja Saini 2014.12.24 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and against the petitioner.
integrity of this documentChandigarh
-4- Civil Writ Petition No. 14222 of 2013
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that since the respondent authorities have illegally withheld the above said amount of petitioner on account of retiral benefits, he is entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum from the date this amount became due till the date of actual payment.
Consequently, petitioner is declared entitled for above said amount of Rs.10,11,368/- as well as the amount of Rs. 97,738/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the dates these amounts became due till the date of actual payment. The respondent authorities are directed to do the needful within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If needful is not done within the stipulated period, petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum instead of 9% per annum.
With the above said observations made and directions issued, present writ petition stands partly allowed, however, with no order as to costs.
December 15, 2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
Pooja Saini JUDGE
Pooja Saini
2014.12.24 10:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh