Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajni Malhotra vs . State Of H.P. And Others. on 4 May, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
Rajni Malhotra vs. State of H.P. and others.
CWP No. 1200 of 2023.
04.05.2023. Present: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Arsh Rattan, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents.
A learned single Member of the erstwhile Tribunal while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner being O.A. No.2819 of 2015 titled Rajni Malhotra vs. State of H.P. and others had vide order dated 24.07.2019 directed as follows:
"8. Consequently, the original application is allowed and office order dated 17.03.2008, Annexure P-2, qua the applicant is quashed and set aside and the amount recovered is directed to be refunded to the applicant within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the applicant. So far as protection of pay is concerned, the applicant may make a comprehensive representation to the respondents/ competent authority within 10 days. The respondents/competent authority shall consider and decide the same within a further period of two months."
2. Strangely enough, the then Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla vide his order dated 04.06.2020 has conveniently chosen to sit over the order passed by the learned erstwhile Tribunal as is evident from operative portion of the aforesaid order which reads as under:
"Now, therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances as well as the directions passed by the Ld. Administrative Tribunal, recovery cannot be affected from the applicant. Accordingly, Superintending Engineer/Executive Engineer ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2023 20:40:44 :::CIS -2- concerned is directed to recover the amount from erring officer/official who has allowed wrong benefit .
of ACP in favour of applicant and refund the same to Govt. exchequer. The amount already recovered from the applicant cannot be restored as the same was rightly recovered and applicant had no right to retain the same. The applicant was in due knowledge of order of undue benefit but he knowingly and deliberately kept as receiving the same. Now her claim to the recovered amount is unjustified and she has no right to claim the said amount. The remaining amount paid in excess however, shall not be recovered and now in view of the facts stated above. Thus, the representation of applicant is considered and accordingly disposed of."
3. We are, prima facie, of the view that the then Engineer-in-Chief Shri Bhawan Kumar Sharma has committed contempt by sitting over the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, let notice of contempt be issued by the Registry to said Shri Bhawan Kumar Sharma on the address to be provided by the official-respondents within two days.
4. List on 01.06.2023. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned Tribunal or else they shall not be heard in the matter.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice (Virender Singh) Judge May 04, 2023.
(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2023 20:40:44 :::CIS