IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4968 of 2008. Decided on: 25th October, 2010. Er. D.S. parmar. .….. Petitioner. Versus HP Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya. …. .. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Lokinder Thakur, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (i) That the impugned Annexure A-10 dated 17.1.1991 may be quashed and set aside to the extent the amount of Rs.12,540/- has been withheld. (ii) That the respondent University may be directed to release the sum of Rs.12,540/- with interest @ 18% per month from the date it has been wrongly withheld till the date of final payment.” 2. In the reply, it is stated at paras 6(4) and (5), it is stated as follows: “(4). That the contents of sub para 4 of para 6 are mis-leading. The Engineer-in-Chief has at his own volition interpreted design allowance as special pay without approval of the competent authority and when the matter came to the notice of Secretary Finance, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh then he clarified that interpretation of Engineer-in-Chief (HPPWD) was wrong and further directed to make recoveries of over- 2 payment made on the basis of such a wrong interpretation vide his letter annexed as Annexure A-8. (5). That since design allowance cannot be treated as special pay, so the contents of this paragraph are not relevant to the original application. Although special pay was doubled yet design allowance remained the same which was in fact Rs.200/- p.m.” 3. But it is seen from Annexure A-3 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD that the design allowance has been treated as special pay by the Department. Annexure A- 3 reads as follows: “With reference to your letter No.EO/2/UHF/87-3381 dated 27.7.89 on the subject cited above, I am to state the design allowance as admissible/sanctioned for the various categories of Engineers in the Design Cells of this Department is a Special Pay.” 4. It is submitted that Annexure A-3 has never been set aside by any competent authority. As per the condition of pay of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the same pay and allowances as enjoined by the PWD Department as per Annexure A-2 when he was inducted in the University. If that be so, there is no point in recovering the same. Even otherwise, it is a fact that the University permitted the petitioner to draw the pay and objection was raised only after retirement. Therefore, there is no justification in withholding the pensionary benefits and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the recovered amount within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner and if not released as above, the petitioner will be entitled for interest at the rate 3 of 12% from the date of retirement and the officer responsible for not releasing the amount within time will be personally liable for the same. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 25th October, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.