CWP (T) No.4183/08 (OA No.264/97) 25.3.2009 Present: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Sharma, Sr.Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1,3 and 4. Mr.J.R.Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. The petitioner has prayed the following relief:- “That the respondents may be directed not to recover the amount of Rs.10,636/- from the applicant which was paid to him about eight years back.” On 25.4.1958 petitioner joined as Clerk in the office of Organising Medical Officer, BCG Vaccination Campaign, Patiala (Punjab). With the reorganization of the State, in accordance with the provisions of the State Re-organisation act, 1966, the petitioner’s services were allocated to Himachal Pradesh. In the year 1980 petitioner through H.P. Public Service Commission was selected as Senior Auditor and appointed as such in the office of Director, Food and Supplies, Himachal Pradesh. He remained on deputation w.e.f. 22.8.1995 to 14.5.1989 with the H.P. Housing Board, in the office of Secretary cum Chief Engineer, Nigam Vihar, Shimla. With the passage of time, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Controller (F&A) in his parent department i.e. Director, Food and Supplies, Himachal Pradesh. He retired on 31.10.1996. After his retirement, the Secretary cum Chief Engineer of the Board vide letter dated 18.11.1996 (Annexure A-1) informed the Joint Secretary (Finance) cum Director, Treasuries and Accounts Organisation, that a sum of Rs.10,636/- was recoverable from the petitioner for the period for which he was on deputation with the Board i.e. w.e.f. 22.8.1995 to 14.5.1989. The excess payment made is on the following counts:- (i) Bonus for 1987-88 and 1989-90 Rs.3,732-00 (ii) Over payment of special pay and D.A. Rs.6904.00 The petitioner has assailed the same in the present proceedings. In the reply the Board has admitted the fact that the same was disbursed to him inadvertently and since the employees on deputation were not entitled to benefits, which were being accorded to the regular employees of the Board, the excess amount paid inadvertently though, needs to be recovered. From the record, it is evident that prior to the initiation of the recovery proceedings, no notice was ever issued to the petitioner. Hence, the decision taken is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that at no point of time, petitioner either asked or had any role in disbursement of the same. The petitioner was on deputation and had worked on the post for which the allowances were admissible and accordingly paid to the petitioner. The Rule with regard to disbursement of the allowances was interpreted by the Board while conferring such benefits to him. Noticeably, after repatriation to the parent department, petitioner was in service for a period of 8 years. Prior to his retirement no action was ever taken for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Shyam Babu Verma & others vs. Union of India and others (1994) 2 SCC 521, Purshotam Lal Das & others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 11 SCC 492 and Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp. (1) SCC 18, it is directed that recovery of Rs.10,636/- shall not be effected from the petitioner. The petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. 25th March, 2009 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.