1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 11479 of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.9.2011 Kidar Nath …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P & Ors. ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 . For the Petitioner: None. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy.A.G for respondents-State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That the recovery of Rs. 7060/- (Rupees Seven thousand and sixty) having been made from the retiral benefits of the applicant at the behest of respondent No.2 because of sheer negligence on the part of respondent No.3, being totally un-justified and unauthorised vis-a-vis unlawful and illegal, may please be declared null and void in the interest of justice. (ii) That, if, relief (i) above is decided and held in affirmative, the respondent No.2 may please further be directed to refund the recovered amount viz Rs. 7060/- (Seven thousand and sixty only) together with interest @ 12% p.a. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from the date of its recovery till final payment of the same. (iii) That exposing the applicant for financial stringency on his retirement from service and dragging him to litigation which otherwise could be avoided without any genuine and plausible cause, the respondents No. 1 to 3 may please be burdened with exemplary costs throughout.” 2. Considering that the amount involved is petty, none has come forward to pursue the matter. Hence, without adverting to the merits of the case, petitioner is granted liberty to approach the respondents for redressal of his surviving grievances, if any. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol),Judge. September 28, 2011 (Priti)