IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14377 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.4.2011. _______________________________________________________ Surender Singh. ….. Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport …. Respondents. Corporation & Anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents not to deduct the compensation amount from the salary of the petitioner in future and the amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner may be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner with interest. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 18.06.2001, the petitioner was driving bus bearing registration No. HP-33-5420, owned by respondent No.1. It met with an accident with Canter No. HP-14- 5473. It has been alleged that the driver of the Canter was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The petitioner on humanitarian grounds took the injured-driver of the Canter to hospital and during Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… this process behind the back of the petitioner, a case under Sections 279, 337 IPC was registered against the petitioner. 3. The driver of the Canter filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, which was allowed on 23.04.2004 and an award of ` 3,25,080/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition was passed in favour of the driver of the Canter. The respondent No.1 filed an appeal against the award dated 23.04.2004 in the High Court, but, in the meantime, respondent No.2 started recovering the amount from the salary of the petitioner during the pendency of appeal against the award dated 23.04.2004 in the High Court. 4. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply in which it has been stated that the petitioner was driving the bus on 18.06.2001 which met with an accident with Canter and a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 IPC vide FIR No. 172/01 at Police Station Samalakha. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the award dated 23.04.2004 has held negligence on the part of the petitioner for committing the accident. It has been stated that respondent No.1 has assailed the award dated 23.04.2004 in the High Court. 5. The respondent No.2 has passed the order considering all facts and in accordance with the CCS and CCA Rules after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The appeal filed by the respondent No.1 against the award dated 24.03.2006 was pending in the High Court at the time of filing the reply. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been acquitted on …3… 12.06.2008 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat in Criminal Case No. 70 of 2002, titled State versus Surender Singh, arising out of FIR No. 172/01 dated 19.06.2001 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, Police Station , Samalakha. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown certified copy of judgment dated 12.06.2008 to the learned counsel for the opposite side. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in view of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the present case is covered by judgment dated 15.12.2009 of this Court in CWP(T) No. 2882 of 2008 of 2008. It has been submitted that respondents had recovered total sum of `7, 403/- from the petitioner by way of two installments. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has not denied that the petitioner has been acquitted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, arising out of FIR No. 172/01 dated 19.06.2001, Police Station, Samalakha. It has also not been denied that an amount of ` 7,403/- in all has been recovered from the petitioner. This Court in CWP (T) No. 2882 of 2008 dated 15.12.2009 has observed that in view of decision of the Corporation dated 03.02.2009 where recovery orders have been issued by the Regional Manager/Head of Offices and concerned driver had filed OAs and stay has been granted against the said recovery, but, later on, such drivers have been acquitted in criminal cases, in such cases, the recovery order be withdrawn subject to withdrawal of OAs by the official/driver concerned. This Court ultimately held that in view of decision of the Corporation dated 03.02.2009, the petitioner in that case was entitled to refund of the …4… amount recovered by the Corporation and in view of decision taken by the Corporation on 03.02.2009, the Corporation was not entitled to recover the awarded amount from the petitioner. 7. The present case is covered by judgment dated 15.12.2009. It has been jointly stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the judgment dated 15.12.2009 has attained finality and it has been implemented. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the petitioner in pursuance of award dated 23.04.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribaunal-II, Solan in M.A.C. Petition No.61- S/2 of 2001, titled as Vijay Kumar versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. The respondents are also directed to refund amount of ` 7,403/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of ` 7,403/-. The petition stands disposed of. April 18, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( Krt) Judge.