IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4255/2008 (OA 574/97) Date of Decision : May 7, 2009 G.P. Verma. Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation & Another. Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?4 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate vice M. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 19.2.1997 (Annexure A-1) passed by the respondent No. 2, withholding a sum of Rs.15,379/- the amount to which the petitioner was entitled to, for the reason that excess payment of gratuity stood released to him. The excess payment, as per the respondents, pertains to his period of service with the Forest Department of the State. The same stands disputed by the petitioner. Admittedly, before adjudication of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing/representation. He was neither informed nor associated with the determination of the outstanding dues in any manner. The recovery of amount definitely entails civil consequences, hence, principles of natural justice ought to have been complied with. 4 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? : 2 : Regretfully, the same was not done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Lakshmi Narayan Mukhopandhyay Vs. Union of India and others {2002 (10) Supreme Court Cases 379}. The Apex Court in similar circumstances quashed the order of recovery and directed the respondents therein to afford opportunity to the employee and take a decision thereupon. In these circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter take a decision on the amount due and payable by him which was allegedly released in excess of his entitlement. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from today. It is stated at the Bar that the entire amount stands disbursed to the petitioner. Subject to the petitioner’s right of assailing the order which may be passed by the authorities, in accordance with Law, he shall deposit the amount so determined, within a period of three months from the date of such determination. The petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 7, 2009. bhupender